(FORTUNE Magazine) – We confess to a certain embarrassment about the amount of space devoted in these valuable pages to arguing with New York Times editorials, which numerous important people are suspected of not even reading, and the truth is that more of this argumentation is coming at you below, but for now leave us contemplate % that exercise the other day in which the editorial board came out against the proposal to eliminate the deductibility of state and local taxes on federal returns, and what nice liberal reason do you suppose the fellows gave for taking this position, which needless to say an upscale New York paper has to take? The reason: ending this deduction hurts the poor. Yes, friends, Ronald Reagan is analyzed to be again bashing poor people by wishing to end this deduction. But how can anyone reason thusly, given that poor people do not itemize? The Times's solution: the poor will be hurt because without deductibility ''middle- and upper-income taxpayers'' would be less inclined to pay the state and local taxes that provide welfare and other benefits. In other words, the poor will be hurt because the rich will be hurt. So why doesn't the Times state up front that ending deductibility hurts the rich? Or have we already answered that question in some column or other?