Cox on Federal Income Tax

* Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), using the valid historical point that the income tax originally was designed to target only the rich, argues that since practically everyone now pays the tax and many of us need to consult experts simply to file returns that “the income tax is an experiment that has miserably failed” and “deserves to die” (Column Right, June 20). Cox fails to understand that the initial targets, wealthy and corporate interests, have turned our progressive income tax system into the most regressive one among more developed capitalist economies and undermined our social fabric.

Early in this century progressive income and corporate taxes were popular because they were perceived as punitive taxes on the rich who earned their lavish incomes by exploiting the working class. However, the political strength of corporate America and wealthy individuals has whittled away at this progressive income tax system. By 1986 the federal government lost more revenue through tax expenditures (i.e., “loopholes” in the tax code) than it received in tax receipts. Although the federal tax burden has been remarkably consistent at roughly 18% of GDP since 1960, who pays that 18% has not. The corporate income tax share has dwindled by 60%, while regressive Social Security taxes have risen 50%. Today the United States has the least tax progressivity of any advanced industrial country and the worst income and wealth distribution.

DAVID R. WELLS

Los Angeles

* I can’t believe that a politician wrote “End the Tyranny of Income Tax.” The history of the 16th Amendment is as horrific as it is informative. But how can we effect change? The American public is no match against the special interests of accountants, lawyers, the IRS, etc. Our country is based upon the principle that all persons are equal under the law. When will our tax system reflect that belief?

GORDY GRUNDY

Los Angeles

* I’m sure that all Americans, both liberal and conservative, would agree that the income tax is an invasion of our privacy. Cox, however, fails to share with us his insights on how to raise the necessary funds to pay for the large military budget that he just voted for. I don’t think he has a clue.

STAN HELFMAN

Huntington Beach

* Cox does not propose a replacement source of federal revenue, but harks back to the days before World War I when federal expenditures were smaller. Interestingly, Cox also supports a massive defense budget sufficient to defend the interests of our allies, most of whom are richer than we are. A balanced-budget advocate like Cox should not suggest a Ronald Reagan military machine financed by a pre-Wilsonian revenue structure.

Most of those advocating an abolition of the federal income tax do so because they oppose a progressive income tax. Proposals to replace the federal income tax with a “flat tax,” “consumption tax” or “value-added tax” all involve taxing the richest residents of Newport Beach (which is represented by Cox) at the same rate as middle-class residents of Pomona or Culver City, and in fact at the same rate as the poor citizens of South-Central Los Angeles and East L.A.

No politician ever got more popular by defending the federal income tax. But I believe that the federal government should tax based on ability to pay--and that a higher rate of tax should be imposed on those with the highest income. Only an income tax provides a mechanism for progressive taxation.

BRAD SHERMAN

Member, State Board of Equalization