Re the assertion in the Nov. 11 letter, "Less government, lower taxes needed," that "...we are paying the highest taxes today than in the last 40 years..."
Whatever she means, it's clearly not the federal income tax since, if she simply opens a reference book (eg. like the 1997 Information Please Almanac), she will find examples of typical income taxes at different periods over the last quarter-century.
According to that source: In 1975 a couple earning $30,000 and filing a joint return listing two dependents and taking the standard deduction would have paid $5,804, while in 1996 they would have paid $1,965.
Similarly, if they earned $50,000 in 1975, they would have paid $14,260, while in 1996, $4,965.
On the other hand, if their income increased significantly, eg. from $30,000 to $50,000 over that time, their tax would have still dropped, from $5,804 to $4,965. Similar changes apply to single taxpayers with no dependents.
Given this comparison, it appears that rather than rising over the last quarter-century, federal income taxes have fallen considerably, at least for people in this income range.
Perhaps the letter writer meant that, because she's making so much more now than she did in the 1960s, that she's paying more tax. In that case, she (as well as your rabidly greedy but holier-than-thou columnist, Cal "It's Ours; Give It Back" Thomas, another person likely to be making inordinately more than he did then) should be happy and not complain.
Rather, she should emulate Edward Filene, the department store magnate who, when asked to explain his support for FDR's high taxes on the rich, said, "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? ... After all, I took all of it from them."
ROBERT G. MCCALLUM Dania Beach