In Defense of Perfectly Legal
by Paul Streckfus

In a letter to the editor, Paul Streckfus responds to Sheldon Pollack's review of David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich and Cheat Everyone Else.

Date: Feb. 10, 2004

To the Editor:

At one time I shared Sheldon Pollack's concern about "the possible collapse of the income tax as the principal source of revenue of the federal government." (See "Perfectly Legal Isn't Perfect, but It's Well Worth Reading," Tax Notes, Feb. 9, 2004, p. 795, a review of David Cay Johnston's book, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich and Cheat Everyone Else.)

Now, however, unlike Pollack, I believe the income tax system has become immoral -- levying high taxes on workers subject to withholding while sparing the well-to-do -- and I believe efforts to enforce such a system are equally immoral. Hence, I disagree with Pollack that policymakers should provide "the IRS with sufficient resources and legislative tools to enforce the tax laws that Congress itself has written." Doing so will just compound the inequity of the current system. If the rich can get Congress to pass a multitude of tax loopholes for their benefit, and can employ "ethically challenged tax professionals" to take what Congress has not given them, why should average taxpayers be denied their little tax evasions?

Pollack criticizes Perfectly Legal for its "dubious premise that the tax system is designed to 'subsidize' the super rich and 'cheat' the ordinary citizen/taxpayer." Other than claiming that this is an "ideological conviction," Pollack gives little basis for his critique. I suggest he get out of his ivory tower and work a few days at H&R Block.

Pollack also accuses Johnston of viewing the world "through a simplistic political model: The rich control politics, big corporations and special interests dominate Washington, and the political stooges of the wealthy and powerful write the tax code for the benefit of their masters." Simplistic maybe, but how does this view differ from reality? Has Pollack not watched the Republican Congress in action in recent years? And Democrats in their heyday were not much better when it came to pleasing their wealthy contributors. At least Pollack recognizes that "special interests in both parties have been rewarded for decades with special tax benefits." Indeed they have, and that's the problem that I believe underlies Perfectly Legal.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Streckfus
Editor, EO Tax Journal
Pasadena, Maryland
February 10, 2004