Dear Folks,

Assuming, for the sake of argument, the manifest absurdity that wages are equitably distributed according to merit in this country (which is the only basis on which a *moral* argument could be made for cutting taxes on the rich), if the top 1% (in income) pay 24% of the taxes, but they will *receive* 37% of the tax cut, from whom is that extra 13% of "hard-earned money" stolen (er..withheld)?

Here's a thought: give tax cuts *only* on taxes paid on wages, so higher income *workers* get a bigger break than the "idle rich." Also, why not stop pitting the comfortable against the obscenely wealthy by restoring a truly progressive, graduated income tax, and *raising* instead of lowering the top rate on truly enormous incomes (not double-income middle class couples)and tying the measure of the upper rate to the designated "poverty level" (say, by a factor of 10). If the poverty level were adjudged to be 25K for a family of four, the top tax rate wouldn't kick in until a couple with two children were making $250K. By tying the tax rates to the fortunes of the poor, we would provide an incentive for the tax-paying (voting) part of the public to want to raise the poverty level, and perhaps, in a better world, the minimum wage.

Personally, I don't think there is any justification for cutting taxes while there is one child hungry or homeless, while there is no universal access to medical treatment, while the country and, indeed, the planet, needs renovation of all sorts. In the alternative, I suppose we could return to a once-hallowed practice: if there is no recourse to justice, what the hell: EAT THE RICH!!!

Ta,

Shula