Address your e-mail to
the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
Net
Worth
I
disagree with Bill Barnes' conclusions in "Search Me." The Web is
a researcher's dream, enabling quick and fairly easy access to a wealth of
information. An individual doing research on the Web quickly learns to acquire
the proper tools for the job and, with a little imagination, can find almost
anything. I use a utility that initiates searches on many search engines
simultaneously and rarely fails to locate what I'm after. Also, even when a
little "search refinement" needs to be done, it is much more time efficient
than going to a library, searching there, and then bringing the information
home. Most importantly, the Web is not just about information. It is about
communication. Through e-mail, one can interrogate experts and seek out better
information.
-- Steve
J. Thornburg
The
Knot
David Boaz's "Privatize
Marriage" adds more confusion to a muddled debate. We need
clarification.
Marriage is already a private
contract, and nothing keeps people from making their own very special
stipulations as part of a marriage contract. But the nation-state currently
functions as the enforcer of contracts, making certain rules and formalities a
practical necessity. In the absence of common rules and enforcement, people
would have to resolve conflicts on their own, which can become messy and
chaotic.
Also, the
marriage contract includes provision of certain social services between two
individuals, the absence of which would result in excessive burdens on society.
Nothing should keep two or more people from signing cohabitation contracts
committing to certain mutual obligations, but whether and to what extent
community privileges should be extended to such unions is another matter.
-- Paul
Kailor
An
Institution by Any Other Name ...
"Privatize
Marriage" by David Boaz disregards the importance of semantics. Gays
"demand" recognition and respect. Fair enough. But they would get farther in
their agendas if they would give a little respect to conventional marriage by
letting heterosexual people keep the word marriage to themselves. Gays should
come up with a word for their own committed relationships. Then, they would
attract more support for gaining recognition for the same kinds of legalities
that help married people.
-- Richard Polese
Voluntary
Spending
In "Trumpet Voluntary,"
Michael Kinsley misses something essential when he argues that potential
volunteers, and in particular well-off ones, might do better to donate their
money than to actually volunteer. Someone who donates their time becomes more,
not less, likely to give money on top of that.
Also,
increasing volunteerism has goals other than encouraging more financial
support. Our society is divided by class. It is possible, by choosing the right
suburb, for middle- to upper-middle-class people to live their lives in very
little contact with the most severe problems of this country. If these people
were more directly involved, they would undoubtedly feel more connected to the
problems around them. The effect is both monetary, in that it encourages
donations, and political, in that it changes and challenges the indifference to
the poor that seems so painfully common on the American political stage.
-- Yaron
Minsky
Blanking
Out
Since I was looking forward
to Slate's coverage of what is sure to be one of the year's most intelligent
movies, I found Sarah Kerr's review of Grosse Pointe Blank , titled
"Dear
John," doubly disappointing. Her belabored references to '80s teen movies
serve no purpose, save to further showcase what seems to be Kerr's suppressed
"thinking girl's" crush on John Cusack. Her actual criticisms of the film were
buried in a pointless parade of her insider knowledge of the scene behind the
movie--far worse than John Cusack's emphasis on Evanston in interviews.
She
whines that it wasn't "developed." But the symbolism of Martin's profession was
clear, and the ideas were consistent. Without having read any interviews or
reviews, I immediately grasped the film's stance on American life. It gave a
funny, precise critique, without being bitter. And the movie did not exclude
those of us who did not know the real-life characters behind it. On the
contrary, for those of us who grew up in the '80s, it spoke with a fresh, real
perspective that's distressingly rare. Kerr's review, on the other hand, was
annoyingly insular and bitter.
-- Michelle Chihara
A Flat
Tax on Net Worth
The "Dialogue" on the
capital-gains tax between Michael Kinsley and John C. Goodman
points out one of the problems in taxing income: It's hard to make it simple
and fair. That's why Goodman likes the simplicity of the flat tax on income.
But that isn't fair either. There is a growing disparity between rich and poor,
but what an individual earns in any given year may not indicate true
wealth.
In place of the income tax, a
flat tax on net worth should be considered. First, net worth is easy to define:
assets (such as cash, real estate, and securities) minus liabilities (or debts)
equals net worth. The Internal Revenue Service would be turned into an agency
whose mission would be simplified: determining the existence and value of
assets. While that is no easy task, we ought not forget that the IRS currently
performs this very function in administering the estate and gift tax.
An important feature of a
flat tax on net worth is that the tax rate would be considerably lower than
that advertised by Rep. Dick Armey. That is so even if the goal is to collect
the same amount of money that the federal government now takes in from the
individual income tax--$588 billion. But the single most compelling argument
for the imposition of a flat tax on net worth is this: 24 percent of all
households wouldn't pay any tax at all.
The major
arguments against the imposition of a wealth tax will be by those who argue
that it will inhibit savings and result in capital flight. But the experiences
of other nations such as Switzerland suggest that this is not true. The richest
will pay much more in taxes, but most of the rest of us will pay less. Some
will pay nothing at all. That's as it should be.
-- Roy
Ulrich
Address
your e-mail to the editors to [email protected]. Please include your address and daytime phone
number (for confirmation only).
