ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Fairness in taxation | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Fairness in taxation

The top 1% of taxpayers account for more income taxes paid then the bottom 90%.

What is the fairest way to collect taxes?

From a Marxist perspective, the fair way to collect taxes would be to force those with the most wealth to pay the most, while those with the least pay proportionately less.

The founders of the USA were not Marxists. They favored capitalism and free enterprise. Thus, from a capitalistic perspective, the fair way to collect taxes would mirror the marketplace wherein a merchant charges the same for everyone, regardless of income. Thus, a capitalistic mechanism to collect taxes would be to calculate the amount of taxes needed and divide by the number of taxpayers, and tax everyone the same regardless of income.

How did we evolve to a Marxist system of income taxation? Marx and Engels published “The Communist Manifesto” in 1848. The Revenue Act of 1861 included the first U.S. federal income tax statute. However, in 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Pollak vs. Farmers) 5-4 that an apportioned federal income tax was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, by 1913, the 16th Amendment, which incorporated the federal income tax, overturned the earlier Supreme Court decision. Coincidentally, the Communist Revolution occurred in Russia in 1917.

Hopefully this historical trend can be reversed toward a more capitalistic view of fairness in taxation in the USA.

Joel I. Last

Greensburg


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.