Defense of ‘fat cats’ as victims is not justified

Re “Quit taxing the rich to fund your pet projects,” Current, May 28

I agree it is preferable that social programs be carefully crafted by our elected representatives in Washington and Sacramento. But our state and federal legislators have failed in this respect. Corporations and, more alarmingly, wealthy individuals have almost exclusively benefited from record profits and tax cuts over the last four years.

Conversely, average citizens have seen their wages stagnate and the real value of their wages eroded by skyrocketing healthcare, education and energy costs. Is there any wonder why California voters are asking multimillionaires to pitch in a little, in a time of war no less, by paying to educate our 4-year-olds?

JOHN RAGOSTA

Los Angeles

*

Michael Boskin should know better than to argue that “the top 10% of taxpayers already pay 70% of income taxes” without noting that same group also owns more than 70% of our nation’s wealth. He ignores the fact that assets amassed by the richest of our citizens generally do not come from ordinary earned income but from capital gains, dividends and often tax-free bonds. This income is generally taxed at a much lower percentage than earned income, and it also is exempt from Social Security taxes.

Among the industrialized democracies of the world, the United States has one of the greatest disparities in income between the wealthiest and poorest percentiles, with the exception of Russia -- if you can consider Russia a democracy. We also have one of the highest infant mortality rates and the lowest quality of primary education in comparison to these same nations.

Although Boskin may make a case against voting on initiatives that raise taxes for narrowly earmarked programs, his defense of the wealthy “victims” of such taxation is sorely misplaced.

JEFFREY ELLIS

Los Angeles