Regarding Jeff D. Emerson’s indignant letter to the editor Nov. 11 lamenting the passage of Maine’s Question 2, I admit that I have difficulty empathizing with his financial plight.

His letter did provoke a few thoughts:

n Like the rest of us, Mr. Emerson earned his Social Security benefits by paying into the Social Security Trust (FICA or SECA) for a number of years. This arrangement has been a dependable contract since 1935. I do not begrudge him the benefits he earned.

n Mr. Emerson is not the only person who chose to live in Maine because of the particular beauty, lifestyle or other advantages it offers. Many of us who have chosen to live here longer than Mr. Emerson’s “nearly” a decade, do not resent the premium (be it taxes, forgone income or whatever) that we pay to enjoy Maine’s benefits.

n If, when Mr. Emerson references his earned income and describes his taxes as “considerable,” we assume him to mean that he was a highly compensated executive at a large company who received taxable compensation in the ballpark of $1 million. Then suppose that in order to slip under the $200,000 threshold he decides to reduce his income.

He could thus cut off the $24,000 tax liability imposed by Question 2. The net effect would be that he would be $776,000 less well off. Maine will weather this challenge despite Mr. Emerson’s self-inflicted nose amputation.

n I hope Mr. Emerson thoroughly enjoys his retirement. If income taxes are a major concern for his financial planning, there are a number of states that have no income taxes, where he might consider relocating. South Dakota and Nevada are far out.

I wish him the best in the next phase of his life. Good work, Mr. Emerson.

Thomas Baiocchi