To the editor:

Professor Harry Shaffer of Kansas University advances the theorem of diminishing marginal utility (March 2) and proffers the example of a fellow possessing 20 shoes as placing little meaning on an extra pair of shoes in contrast to a fellow with no shoes placing great meaning on a single pair of shoes. This apparently in response to a diametrically opposite thesis advanced by Robert Tyler (Feb. 24) who contended we should tax shoes and not individual income.

The argumentative response and its antithesis reminds one of the argument put forth by the Jack Nicholson detective character to the character of the corrupt millionaire played ably by the director John Huston in the film “Chinatown.” Nicholson’s character suspects Huston’s character of being a murderer. Still, he is perplexed: Huston has murdered his good friend and long-time partner because he wants more money and its attendant power. A devotee of Shaffer’s law of diminishing marginal utility, Nicholson exasperates on the issue of how much more money Huston needs. What, Nicholson wonders, will satisfy him. Huston is perplexed and wisely ignores Nicholson’s lack of formal training in real world events. He prefers to find a way to eliminate Nicholson, pesky fellow that the detective is.

In much the same fashion we can eliminate Shaffer’s argument by pointing out that by taxing shoes instead of income, more shoes will be bought and more people employed selling them.

For the record, my wife has more than 20 shoes but values some more than others.

Matthew M. O’Connell,

Topeka