Pity the Poor Little Plutocrats

To the editors:

Woe to the wealthy! At least that's what the dimmer readers of "The Income Tax Conspiracy" by Jason L. Steorts '03 (Opinion, March 7) might be tempted to yell. The brighter bulbs, however, can recognize it for the inanity it is.

His point about progressive taxation imposing a double penalty upon the wealthy should never have gotten past the editors. What is implied is that under a flat tax the rich would have the special penalty of paying more money than the poor. Is this the "first" penalty for being rich? Steorts implies that a just tax system, without special penalties, would have each person pay the same amount. If a single mother earns $20,000, and a rich banker earns $200,000, then each of them paying $10,000 is not just cause for the mother to complain: them's the breaks.

But what about that "extra" penalty that progressive taxation imposes upon the wealthy? He seems to think that it's just poor people hating their betters (to use his words, "those who [are] good at what they do").

I don't know if Steorts has ever met any poor people, but money is far more important to the poor than the rich. For the rich, an extra tax might mean vacation in Rio instead of Paris. For the poor, an extra tax might mean that mother has to choose between heat in winter and health insurance for her children.

The notion that the rich, even with those burdensome progressive taxes, are dealt with unfairly is nonsense.

Glenn Kinen '02

March 7, 2001

UC Made Right Decision on Ivy Council

To the editors:

In "Skeptics Threaten Ivy Council" (Opinion, March 8), Ean W. Fullerton, a first-year at Columbia, attacked the decision of the Undergraduate Council to evaluate its involvement in the Ivy Council. Fullerton describes this as an "unwarranted ultimatum"; I suggest that the Ivy Council is an unwarranted organization.

Marked by wasteful spending and high costs, the Ivy Council has been no more than a drain on the resources of the already tight budget of the council.

That a constituent group would demand effective and efficient government seems incomprehensible to Fullerton; it seems quite reasonable to me and to the other council members who voted for the legislation.

We are told that the Ivy Council "nurtures mutually beneficial relationships," and fosters "[collaboration] on those tasks that are greater than any single student government." Yet I challenge Fullerton to provide me with one tangible benefit that was derived from Ivy Council. When an organization is utterly unproductive, I see little reason to remain affiliated unless positive change can be made.

I do not believe that the reforms the council has asked for are extreme or unreasonable--or, for that matter, hard to comply with. If the Ivy Council does not put forth a good-faith effort to change, then I will not hesitate to support withdrawal.

John P. Marshall '01

March 8, 2001

The writer is a member of the Undergraduate Council.