In Ian Brown’s editorial cartoon and Judy Whipple’s letter to the editor (Redistribution not a good policy for class grades, U.S. economy, SN 10/28), they compare Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s tax policy to a classroom where all students with 4.0s would all receive 3.0s, so students with 1.0s can get 2.0s.
This analogy is insulting to students’ intelligence on several levels.
First of all, at the beginning of every class, all students begin with the same grade and same opportunity to get a good grade. Whipple’s analogy assumes that this is also the case for the real world. It is not. Not only does it assume that everyone is born with equal opportunities, it also assumes that all poor people are lazy (like the failing student). Neither of these assumptions is true.
Although Whipple might favor taxing the poor as much as the wealthy, Americans have traditionally embraced a graduated tax system, where those who make more money are taxed a higher marginal rate than those that do not.
Obama’s tax plan is nothing radical. His plan increases the tax on every dollar earned above $250,000 by a mere 4 percent. Obama will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans struggling in this recession, and the least fortunate will receive a tax credit.
Tax credits are a key component of Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s health care plan, yet when Obama offers tax credits, McCain’s desperate campaign labels Obama a socialist.
A graduated tax system that favors working-class Americans isn’t socialist — it is a traditional and enduring tenet of American government.
Geoff Levin
international relations sophomore
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
