Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (July 10, 1972)
Commentary On the right. . . William F. Buckley Jr. McGovern’s loopholes get bigger Little by little the analysis rolls in, to the considerable disadvantage of Senator George McGovern who, even as he has now embraced the cause of Israel more hawkishly than anyone since General Dayan, will surely, sometime before Election Day, deliver a paean on the tax loophole. A fortnight ago Mr. Stewart Alsop reported that a big McGovern backer from California, who had made a fortune in computers, consulted his computers, feeding them one of Senator McGovern’s formulas for bringing wealth to the needy, and discovered that $42 billion was missing. I.e., that just one of the redistributionist schemes proposed by Senator McGovern was underfinanced by a mere $42 billion. The backer was not the man best suited to question the reliability of computers so it is not known whether he will finally back off from his computers or from his candidate. Now the Economics Division of the Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, in its news letters, makes a few gentle comments about the loopholes Senator McGovern is forever talking about. Do you remember the one about all the r eople who reported gross incomes in excess of $200,000 in 1970 who paid zero taxes? High indignation set in every time Senator McGovern men tioned the matter. What he did not mention is that there were exactly 106 such cases, and that a study of them reveals that the overwhelming majority either: a) paid taxes to foreign countries receiving the usual tax credit; or b) paid state taxes;or c) had deductions sanctioned by law. Senator McGovern also did not mention that there are in fact 15,000 American citizens who reported incomes in excess of $200,000 who did pay income taxes—at an effective tax rate of 44 per cent. Nor does Senator McGovern stress the use of loopholes to people who are not necessarily rich. For instance, the joint return permitted husband and wife, in the absence of which loophole the government would realize six to ten billion dollars in additional revenue. The new tax law of 1969, regularly disparaged as a rich man’s tax law, deserves to be criticized for any number of reasons, all of them, however, more complicated than those Senator McGovern comes up with. That tax law reduced the rate of income taxation by 82 per cent for those earning $3,000 or less; by 43 per cent for those earning $3 5 thousand; by 27 per cent for those earning $5 - 7 thousands— and so on, with a reduction of 1.7 per cent for those earning $50 - 100 thousand; and an increase of 7 per cent for those earning $100 thousand and over. But the figures are tiresome, when put beside the principal point, which is that over the years Congress and the Executive have done what they thought best to affect the allocation of resources. The Mellon Bank's economic newsletter sums it up: “For example, it (the tax law) is used to encourage home ownership, to lower the cost of borrowing to state and local governments, to increase the value of retirement and unemployment benefits, to lower the cost of medical care, and to encourage private philanthropy. Reasonable men can disagree on whether or not the individual income tax law is the proper vehicle through which such ob jectives should be accomplished. But it is clear that proposals to abolish the existing set of tax preferences, unless ac companied by other positive measures, imply a repudiation of the objectives which originally led to the establishmai of the preferences.” It is quite literally that simple: Should Congress, or should it not, encourag married couples, home owners, the sick the economically venturesome’' Candida McGovern will in due course need to tan up to the consequences of his rhetoric When he does so, I for one, wish that he might say something truly radical. Namely that it is not the proper husinentl Government to attempt to manipulali human economic behavior by a tissue of built-in biases in the tax law. The trouhla with the idea of making justice via lai laws is that one never really knows whatlt is that one is accomplishing; who it is tin one is hurting. Professor Friedman hu over and over again demonstrated thal efforts by the Government to give the little man a break by this or the other welfan subsidy end by hurting him. A true bread with economic interventionism would m McGovern coming out against rinky-dtt tax laws, against all deductions texcqd obviously justified deductions), in favord the elimination of the progressive fee tut of the income tax, and in favor oft maximum tax rate of 20 per cent. [ Letters Stay hidden? Re Nicholas Von Hoffman’s statement in his Thursday column that (I paraphrase) “one is tempted to conclude that gay people should've stayed in the closet while they were hiding we were at least avoiding the problem.” When one is tempted to such con clusions—and we all are from time to time, generally with reference to groups to which we don’t belong—one asks for volunteer Toms. Or, more gently, one asks a rather remarkable forbearance on the part of people who are denied not just social acceptance but legal equity. Wishing people would pipe down because their demands are inconvenient is probably understandable. We’d all like a bit more peace and quiet. But then we’d also like to be free. First freedom, Nicholas. Then peace. Patricia Wright SENIOR, Journalism Freedom of Choice This letter is in reply to your editorial of June 29, 1972, “Oregon for Oregonians.” GJell folks, it appears- er. it seems to looK like- or ratker, I thinK that 1 tkink that I've got tke , 72 election all seun op... The United States was founded on tin principles of freedom of choice. Hi* freedoms include choice of religion, vocation, and habitat. It seems to me, Mr. Bucy, that because a person is bom* lives in a beautiful region such as OregH he is no better than someone from Obit Arkansas, or Iowa. Does his birth rig give him the authority to declare that <■g he should live where the grass is greeWf Must a person living in the ghetto mak** attempt to better his condition7 No, d«at give him a chance to discover Ik mysteries of Crater Lake, camp bekSN snow-capped mountain, view Hi magnificent rugged coast, or just hug* giant spruce. No, don’t give him 1 freedom of choice. You have unjtilgl discriminated against all non-OregoniM Your logic, location of habitat, is no m** fair than the prejudice the Negro, lnditt or woman faces daily. J We are citizens of the United Slat* tax payers, and lovers of the state * Oregon. We have not destroyed our niW state nor do we intend to destroy you®' is because we love Oregon so much that* write this letter. Oregon must maintain# highest of anti-pollution standards. It®# strive to keep its beautiful ecology in## Oregon must permit people to share * resources so that they can in turn givep# of themselves. Martin I) JobM* Janice A. Joins* Thank You Thank you for Oregon for Oregonis* Some Americans still have pioneer spirit where you find a beauwj area and stay there until it bee0®* unlivable and then pack up and moveto new area. Then you live there for a*** until it becomes unbearable and then m on again. And so on. ^ What these modem pioneers in tw streamlined 300 horsepower wagons®* seem to realize is that if they come here they’re going to turn this pla<* what they are now running from. A m Maybe if they'd stay home and worl improving their own living conditions* have a little more time to presecve^ Jr., Art KduciH"
