To the editor: Contributing author Veronique de Rugy precisely describes in some ways the demonstrably unfair results of the U.S. tax system that almost all of us contribute to (“Debunking five myths of the American tax system,” April 16). Nonetheless, in her op-ed, she sadly reaches some very inaccurate conclusions and appears to undertake the much-maligned “trickle-down” concept. As only one instance, she wrongly concludes that company taxation is essentially borne by the company’s staff and prospects and, due to this fact, firms shouldn’t bear their fair proportion.
In 2025, a married couple with $96,951 in revenue could be federally taxed at a prime fee of twenty-two%. Distinction that to Tesla in 2025, which had $5.7 billion of U.S. revenue and paid no federal income tax — or to Amazon in 2025, which had working revenue of $79.98 billion but paid only $1.2 billion (1.5%) in federal revenue tax. And President Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act completely decreased the highest federal company revenue tax fee from 35% to 21%, making for a 40% decrease in taxes paid on IRS taxable revenue.
Decreased company tax charges profit shareholders and company officers, not, for essentially the most half, staff and prospects. As only one instance, in late 2025, Tesla authorized a brand new, closely contested $1-trillion compensation package deal for Elon Musk whereas it paid no federal revenue tax. And all these company tax reductions have occurred whereas Trump’s sky-high federal deficit reaches unprecedented ranges.
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith famously described and debunked trickle-down economics, the place decreased company taxes supposedly profit customers, this manner: “When you feed sufficient oats to the horse, some will go via to feed the sparrows.”
Ken Goldman, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: This op-ed is spot on. It’s true: The best earners pay the vast majority of our federal revenue taxes. Pushing profitable companies and other people out of the state will not be in anybody’s finest curiosity.
I’ve a good friend who moved to Incline Village, Nev., alongside Lake Tahoe, and paid off his home there in lower than 4 years with the revenue tax he saved. Nevada has no state revenue taxes, whereas California has the highest in the country. Why? Florida additionally has no state revenue tax, but it has a constantly higher-ranking K-12 education system than California. How do they do it?
Jerry Marcil, Palos Verdes Estates
..
To the editor: Relating to delusion No. 1: De Rugy highlights that prime earners pay a big share of federal revenue taxes, however overlooks the important thing distinction between earned revenue and unearned revenue like capital beneficial properties. For the reason that 1981 tax changes, decrease capital beneficial properties charges have incentivized the ultra-wealthy to shift compensation into evenly taxed property. Consequently, their efficient tax charges might be far decrease than these of high-earning professionals. Public data have proven among the wealthiest People paying solely a small proportion in true tax charges.
Sure, the highest 10% of revenue earners pay the vast majority of revenue tax. This obscures the 0.1% ultra-wealthy who’ve $1 annual salaries or none in any respect (Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and many others.) however who economically soak up implausible unearned revenue. The tax funds on capital beneficial properties are deferred over many years, now aided by methods like “purchase, borrow, die” and “step-up in value foundation” to by no means pay tax. It’s these simply behind the 0.1% who pay; these with excessive earned revenue are those who fund and help America.
Capitalism primarily delivers dramatically completely different financial incomes. CEOs earn greater than 400 occasions the typical employee, based on one study of incomes in 2021. Conservative myths and tales like “trickle-down economics” enlarge that benefit with decrease preferential charges and even zero tax. This can’t stand. True conservatives have to re-embrace noblesse oblige: “To whom a lot is given, a lot is predicted.”
Joe Mulligan, Manhattan Seashore
..
To the editor: De Rugy disingenuously blames solely “the structural development of Social Safety and Medicare” for America’s “fiscal disaster” whereas failing to say the expansion of the navy finances, which Trump wants to increase by almost 50% in a single yr, additionally chopping Social Safety and Medicare. Sooner or later one has to ask, “Precisely what’s it that our navy is defending?”
Thomas Bliss, Los Angeles
