I read the headline, “Why ‘tax the rich’ demands are so unreasonable” (April 15), by Jonah Goldberg in The Baltimore Sun along with the first couple of paragraphs and couldn't suppress a ghoulish laugh or read further. So in 2016 the top one percent paid 37.3 percent of all income tax revenue, a share that was greater than the bottom 90 percent of all payers of income tax combined.
What about the fact that the top one percent own most of America and are wealthier than more than 37.3 percent of all the world's population? Or that in my state, wealthy Maryland, a high percentage of taxpayers have taxable income far below the nation's median family income of $50,000-plus. Mr. Goldberg’s is a crude example of the selective use of a data point to make a false case in defense of the rich or for continued major income inequality in America and the world.
I am currently reading a book about the history of the American people since Columbus to today. The major theme of the book is the strife between the haves and have nots that has characterized the history of the United States. Mr. Goldberg’s column fits right in with the apologists for the wealthy. The author states that at the time of the American Revolution about a third of the colonists were supportive, another third were not and another third felt the battle was about which class of elites, British or American, would lead America. The later group saw no difference between the two. The interesting thing is that throughout our history the haves, your so-called rich, have always come out on top to the detriment of the have-nots.
If that is what Mr. Goldberg wants to be an apologist for, so be it. I'm sure in the long run that will win out for us Americans. Excuse my sarcasm, but I don't think his piece rates anything better.
Joseph Costa, Baltimore
Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.