Evening star., 1963-12-29
Rich Relief

SAA DNSNAAAbCA 90 CdlJOl Adl
entitled Rich Relief" is such
a gross distortion of the facts
that I can only hope that it
was written in jest. However,
since many Of your readers
will not interpret it that way,
the record should be set
straight as follows:
You assume that all free
enterprise is owned by mil
lionaires, who are so adept
at financial finagling that
they can avoid paying a fair
share Of the tax burden. It is
your thesis that, If such
people we're taxed more
heavily, they would have to
work harder, thereby provid-
ing more jobs, etc. Actually
and quite to the contrary
most businesses, large and
small, are owned by proprie-
tors or stockholders, whose
income is principally salary,
rather than the result Of
capital gains. There is little
that such people can do to
ease their tax burdens, and
they are the ones who are
being taxed so unfairly. Con-
slider, for example, the posi-
ton Of the owner-operator Of
a small corporation that has
a profit of 100000 before
taxes. About so per cent Of
this will have to be paid as
corporate income tax, both
Federal and State, before
any Of 1t can be distributed
to the stockholders as divi-
dends. The stockholders may
we'll be in the 40 per cent
surtax bracket, so they will
receive less than 80 cents
from each profit dollar.
Consequently there is little
reason for the owners Of the
corporation to work hard, be
efficient. expand, or create
more jobs. Businesses are
essentially machines that are
created and operated to earn
money. Any machine that is
less than 80 per cent eff
cient is very poor indeed.
AS for the remarks con-
corning the effects of the tax
laws upon the moral fiber Of
the rich, 1t Is incredible to
me that The Star could
employ such twisted logic. 1t
is obviously immoral for the
Government to take as much
as 80 per cent Of a mans
earnings, and taking an even
greater share will only pro-
mote further tax evasion and
abuse. Any unpopular and
unfair law will lead to crime
among those directly affect
ed. Look at Prohibition!
The Star should recognize
that most jobs are provided
by small businessmen, many
of whom are working hard to
earn a respectable income
while being fair and decent
to their employees. To such
people the profit motive is
the best one for continuing
the expansion that benefits
the whole community. I
think The Star should make
it clear that its remarks are
directed against those few
if any-who are so filthy
rich that they can just sit
back and clip coupons.
Peter G. SuIzer.
Editors note: The Star
does not assume that all
free enterprise is oWued By
miIliondireS," etc. We knot0
better than that. Much better.
I, like everyone else, (sic)
pay very little attention to
the editorials in The Star
since they are so fatuous and
inane.
However, one of your edi-
torials on Sunday, December
%, surpassed even your own
high standards in this regard
and I quote the following
gem therefrom:
"It seems at least possible
that a tax cut in the top
brackets will seriously weak
en- the moral fiber Of the
very rich. Have we the right
so to imperil their spiritual
welfare? Oughtn't we rather
to raise their taxes, forcing
them to venture even more
energetically, with ensuing
material benefits to the
economy and a higher moral
tone for themselveS?"
I respectfully suggest that
the genius who wrote the
foregoing literary master
piece would be better advised