Income taxes and the rich

Re “Who’s really rich, and why does it matter?” Opinion, Oct. 26

It appears that Mitchell Rofsky’s wandering arguments are meant to imply that we might as well vote Republican on tax issues.

I would like to point out one of the many flaws in his discussion. The purpose of an income tax is not to correct any potential “maldistribution of income,” it is simply to pay for our federal government. The question is how to do this fairly.

Clearly, having every individual pay an equal share is not fair to families of four with low incomes, so individuals earning more are asked to pay more to help cover for the less fortunate. Who pays increased rates is a legitimate subject of debate, but the definition of rich is relative and arbitrary and does not advance the discussion.

Robert Buck

San Diego

--

In response to whether anyone thought that an annual income of $35,000 in 1960 was considered rich: Where was Rofsky in 1960? Back then, full professors at most Midwestern state universities making $18,000 annually were considered very highly paid.

Yes -- $35,000 a year was very rich indeed.

Jade Simonson

Los Altos