Dear Editor:

The Gloors make as good a case as any for the so-called "Fair Tax," but voters should not be taken in by the deceptive arguments. (“Reasons to support graduated income tax,” Sept. 23-24 MDTJ).

The deception starts with the naming of the amendment. The implication of supporters of the amendment is that millionaires somehow pay the same amount as middle class taxpayers, conflating tax rate with tax amount. In fact, 5% of $1 million is 20 times that of $50,000, hardly unfair to either taxpayer.

The constant demand for higher tax rates for higher income taxpayers by liberals and Marxists conceals a redistributionist motive and appeal to class envy. Superficially attractive on its face, it puts the government in the role of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, hardly "fair." Try and get a liberal to define "the rich" or what "fair share" of their income the government should be entitled to take.

The Gloors mention the unfunded pension liability as somehow germane. It is, but not in the way they suggest. Previous tax hikes were justified by the need to reduce this deficit, but the take was instead spent on new spending. Why should anyone trust that the Springfield gang would be more responsible if only we would allow them to hike taxes on the "millionaires and billionaires?" Given Springfield's dishonesty, why should anyone believe that "97% of taxpayers will pay the same or less" than they do now, especially since the pols can hike taxes at will and will likely do so eventually?

Unremarked by either the Gloors or Jesse White's brochure is perhaps the strongest argument for a flat tax rate: If the pain of a tax hike is felt by all taxpayers, retribution at the polls is more likely. Springfield politicians would clearly prefer a "divide and conquer" strategy to hiking taxes that would reduce the risk of an involuntary retirement at the hands of angry voters. If they really believe a tax hike is necessary, they should be forced to make a case for it to all of the taxpayers and be willing to face the consequences.

Voters should read the arguments against the proposed constitutional amendment carefully and vote no on the amendment in the Nov. 3 election.

David Hanson

Savanna