To the editor:
It has been reported that when John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, "that's where the money is."
Recent polls indicate that many Americans support our president's goal to raise income tax rates on the "rich" as a partial solution to our national debt problems. As a former community worker, he appears to endorse connecting Dillinger's response with a Robin Hood program to redistribute our citizens' wealth.
But this raises questions. What are the ethical justifications for graduated income taxes, taking a larger percent of one's income simply because it is larger? Is it somehow "owed?" Is a family with an annual income of $250,000 "rich?"
Would a majority of our voters, through their legislators, enact punitive (50 percent, 80 percent or confiscation) income taxes on our more successful citizens, simply because they could (ethics be damned)? Would our republic survive?
Dillinger probably used a gun. We called him a criminal.