This title is not exactly true; it's not exactly false either. It contains a truth that has been shaped by my preferences (or, if you wish, my biases, philosophy, or prejudices) and by my desire to grab the reader's attention and force him (and I mean him) to reach a specific conclusion. It is, in short, rhetoric. In that respect it is not unlike many of the arguments now popularly raised against the progressive income tax. My argument differs from many others in its open acknowledgment of the use of rhetoric.

The progressive income tax is currently under siege. This is a new phenomenon: new not in the fact of the opposition itself, but in the extent of the opposition. In 1913, the general public, economists, and politicians argued about the exact schedule of rates and exemptions, but the idea of graduated or progressive rates was accepted with surprising ease and generally has remained unquestioned ever since. The economic and political consensus about progressivity began to fall apart sometime in the 1970s. Two alternatives to progressivity gained strength: a modified flat or proportionate income tax and an expenditure- or consumption-based tax. An expenditure-based tax proved politically unacceptable but the (modified) flat tax alternative gained strength and culminated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The drastic erosion of support for progressivity spurred the writing of this article. Before we consent to this erosion we should reevaluate the arguments upon which it is based.

Neoconservative philosophy, with its belief in the primacy of individual rights, both leads to and is supported by the belief in the efficacy of the market as the means to achieve each person's rights and satisfactions most fully.