To the Editor:
Re “Make a Difference This Tax Season,” by Matthew Desmond (Opinion guest essay, April 14):
Mr. Desmond is, of course, right that tax rates and tax deductions are heavily skewed to favor the very wealthy. One of the solutions he offers, however, asks the somewhat wealthy to imitate the very wealthy: Take your deduction and give to your favorite charities.
That’s how the taxpayers end up subsidizing — through deductible philanthropy — huge bequests to operas, billionaires’ alma maters, vanity art collections and other pet projects.
If people just didn’t take the deductions, as Mr. Desmond also proposes, the savings could help fund main government responsibilities like schools, safety, health care and the like.
Better yet, reform the deductions.
Claude S. Fischer
Berkeley, Calif.
The writer is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.
To the Editor:
If I forgo a few thousand dollars in tax deductions to which I am legally entitled, can I tell the government please add this to the low-income housing budget and don’t spend it on the F135 fighter jet engine?
I believe that I should pay higher taxes, and so should everyone as rich as I am, or richer. If they did, I would happily pay my share. Until the tax laws require this, I would rather take the deduction and contribute to the Economic Policy Institute or United for a Fair Economy, two nonprofits that are working for a fair tax system.
John L. Hammond
New York
The writer is professor emeritus of sociology at Hunter College and Graduate Center, CUNY.
To the Editor:
Matthew Desmond questions whether it is ethical for those with high incomes to take advantage of many tax deductions they are legally able to take under the tax code.
It’s unreasonable to suggest that paying one’s taxes in compliance with the tax laws is unethical. He also fails to mention that people with the top 1 percent of income pay approximately 46 percent of federal income taxes — more than people with the lowest 90 percent of income combined.
According to Philanthropy Roundtable, the top 1 percent of earners give approximately a third of annual charitable contributions. In addition, individuals with a net worth in the top 1.4 percent give approximately 86 percent of the charitable bequests made upon death.
Michael Sherman
Wynnewood, Pa.
To the Editor:
Thank you for this thought-provoking opinion piece. I often hear about long-term solutions to address poverty but appreciate the suggestions for what we can do on an individual level now as well as a broader collective response. It’s empowering and a good reminder that there are probably many viable strategies within reach.
April Stevens
Quincy, Mass.
To the Editor:
I am grateful for Matthew Desmond’s commentary. I would add that we should decline the deduction for charitable donations. These are gifts, not transactions, so spare us the tax write-offs, our names on the building, our names in the symphony program.
We are blessed to be leading comfortable lives in a nation with unconscionable disparities of wealth and opportunity. Giving has its own inherent rewards.
Michael Rooke-Ley
San Francisco
To the Editor:
I found Matthew Desmond’s opinion piece incredibly refreshing and on the mark. A country that overwhelmingly shovels its wealth to its rich, and especially to its very, very rich, is a morally and opportunistically bankrupt one. I believe it is also a foolish one that ignores the potential joy and community that a more equal country could have.
Together, we would be much better off if we emulated the Nordic nations, taxed the rich as we did in the 1950s (top rate of 91 percent), and enjoyed a society rich in community, fairness and a wide diversity of friendships.
R. Peter Wilcox
Portland, Ore.
A Welcome Move on Aid to Ukraine
To the Editor:
Re “Speaker Sets Weekend Vote on Package for Long-Stalled Israel and Ukraine Aid” (news article, April 18):
After resisting attempts to pass a foreign aid package that would provide vital military assistance to a desperate Ukraine, Speaker Mike Johnson finally appears ready to act, striking a deal that would alienate far-right Republicans while likely gaining support from Democrats to salvage his precarious position as speaker.
For months, Mr. Johnson was shamelessly doing the bidding of former President Donald Trump, who stonewalled House passage of a popular bill that combined President Biden’s plan for border security with a broad aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
The refusal to vote for critically important military assistance in the face of Ukraine’s rapidly deteriorating defensive position has been outrageous and comes from a vocal fringe minority of isolationist House Republicans who have completely politicized foreign policy.
Mr. Johnson seems to have done an about-face, possibly daring to enlist the help of Democrats to support his speakership along with their vote to pass the aid package.
In a dysfunctional Congress, it’s pathetic that such a deal is a novel idea, but it would be a long-delayed and welcome fresh start.
Roger Hirschberg
South Burlington, Vt.
Firearms Safety on the Set
To the Editor:
Re “‘Rust’ Armorer Is Sentenced to 18 Months for Involuntary Manslaughter” (news article, April 17):
In the future, it would be prudent if the employment of set armorers is limited to retired law enforcement or military firearms instructors or shooting range control officers. These people have lived and breathed every aspect of firearms safety for many years and have the experience to ensure that tragedies like this do not happen again.
To the Editor:
“Recycling of Plastic Falls Short of Promise” (news article, April 6) captures well the petrochemical industry’s failure to deliver any real solutions to the plastics crisis it has created.
Most “advanced recycling” methods are hardly new, but rather they use an incineration technology that has been around for decades. Petrochemical companies are greenwashing the process as “recycling” or “manufacturing” in an effort to exempt it from solid waste incineration rules under the Clean Air Act.
These facilities release dioxins, PFAS, flame retardants, benzene, formaldehyde, particulate matter and heavy metals. They also generate pyrolysis oil, a material so toxic that boat fuels made from it could cause cancer in every person exposed over a lifetime, according to a risk assessment by E.P.A. scientists.
The PureCycle “advanced recycling” facility in Ohio uses a different but equally problematic solvent-based process. As you describe, PureCycle has been riddled with technical and economic failures.
“Advanced recycling” is the centerpiece of an untenable campaign to make plastic waste disappear from sight — by turning it into air pollution — while the industry proceeds to triple or even quadruple production.
Cynthia Palmer
Arlington, Va.
The writer is a senior analyst for petrochemicals at Moms Clean Air Force.