In response to Gerald McPherson of Crystal Lake, who asked, “Why should those who are able to earn more be penalized by paying taxes at a higher rate?” (Voice, July 25): Mr. McPherson, there are several reasons why a graduated tax rate is appropriate.
First, a totally flat tax rate (were it high enough to fund government operations and the entitlement programs Americans have decided they want to have) would have to be so high that many poor people could not, after taxes, afford to pay for food, clothing and shelter. Bear in mind that the poor often spend more than 50 percent of their after-tax income on shelter alone. Ironically, one of our most expensive entitlement programs currently subsidizes housing costs for the middle class and the wealthy, and this is not slated for elimination under most flat-tax proposals.
Second, high earners tend to consume a disproportionate share of national resources, and they are rarely if ever asked to pay for the true public costs connected with this consumption. For example, wealthy families often own three or more cars, which they drive on roads that the poor, who are often carless, are forced to help maintain through the taxes they pay. The excessive use of automobiles causes gridlock, depletes our fossil-fuel supply and pollutes the air, yet the vast majority of auto owners vigorously resist the idea of subsidizing (or using) public transit. And most of them would fight like steers if gas were priced at $5 a gallon, as it is in France.
Then there is the concept of “civics.” That is to say, those of us who have more should be willing to help others who are less fortunate for the betterment of society. Unfortunately, these days the concept of “civic responsibility” seems to be as dated and anachronistic as that of “Do unto others. . . .”
