Buckley’s Tax Parable: ‘I Am That 10th Man’

* The tax parable that William F. Buckley recounts in his April 30 commentary begs several more questions that he does not pose, among them: Did that generous 10th man agree to be so obliging because the 10 diners originally took into account the fact that diners one through seven could barely feed their families the rest of the week, yet he had a surfeit? That although the restaurant had lowered the price, those first seven diners are still struggling to make ends meet? And might that 10th diner be aware of the fact that though there are other restaurants he might visit, he would be charged an even larger share for a meal not quite so fine?

I am that 10th man, and I am quite well aware of those facts.

SCOTT MALSIN

Los Angeles

*

I conclude that the top 10% of wage earners presently pay 59% of all taxes ($59 of the $100 restaurant tab). But under the proposed tax reform that same group would shoulder 65% of the national tax burden ($52 of the $80 tab). Wait just a minute here. The poor rich guy’s share of the load actually increases? I thought the tax proposal was a benefit for the rich. What a rook!

RAYMON C. RIORDAN

Arcadia

*

Buckley’s parable misses the same point that the arguments for a wealthiest-biased tax cut miss. Those who earn the most also benefit the most from that which the taxes bring--roads to facilitate travel for their businesses, police protection for same, regulatory agencies for fairness and protection in all areas of interstate and international trade, even military expenditures (oil companies and Desert Storm, for example). In the parable, the 10th man must have had appetizers, cocktails, wine, the most expensive item on the menu and dessert. His bill should be much greater. As for those who did not pay at all, they got the least, but their being fed helped protect the 10th from facing a starving and desperate few.

FRANCIS X. FASHING

Palm Desert