To the editor: Contributing writer Veronique de Rugy’s snarky op-ed title says all we need to know about where her sympathies lie: with our put-upon rich, doing so much to help the poor (“What’s behind these wild new wealth-tax proposals?,” Feb. 5). A wealth tax would be too much for them because their assets are insufficiently liquid. They are invested in enterprises that help the lower classes.
De Rugy’s solutions to our deficit problems are to cut government spending (presumably, this would mean programs like healthcare, Social Security and others that benefit the non-rich) and to “broaden the tax base.” This usually means imposing a national sales tax that hurts the middle class and poor who are now just making ends meet.
The Rand Corporation issued a report last February that indicates that between 1975 and 2023, the bottom 90% of workers transferred $79 trillion (adjusted for inflation) to the wealthiest 10% of our population. This figure has been out for a year, but we seldom hear anything about this. This represents a massive progression of wealth distribution compared to 1945-1974. Nothing but crickets from De Rugy on that.
Carl Mariz, Irvine
..
To the editor: De Rugy is absolutely correct in her assessment of wealth taxes.
They have not been successful in the past and they will not be in the future unless politicians can rein in their propensities to spend, spend, spend and give, give, give.
AJ Grantham, Pasadena
..
To the editor: De Rugy states that the rich shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
One example of this burden showed up in the news recently. Amazon paid $9 billion in taxes for 2024. The tax for 2025: $1.2 billion. It was predictable because the Republicans in Congress gave the rich and corporations big tax breaks last year on the president’s orders. Makes you feel so sorry for the rich, yes?
Cathy Gregory, Lompoc
..
To the editor: Regarding Veronique De Rugy’s article decrying a wealth tax, she really needs to watch a few episodes of the reality TV show “Super Swank.”
“Super Swank” depicts the ultra-rich blowing money on $800 hamburgers, $1,000 shots of tequila and much, much more.
It seems to me $800 will buy enough McDonald’s hamburgers for 200 starving children.
Tony Laudati, Venice
..
To the editor: A one-time 5% tax on $1 billion would leave the taxpayer a mere $950 million (“Yes, there really was a ‘March for Billionaires’ rally in San Francisco,” Feb. 7). Hardly abject poverty.
Richard Melniker, Los Angeles
