MOST READERS ARE ANGRY AT THE IRS--BUT SOME SPEAK OUT IN ITS SUPPORT

(MONEY Magazine) – The January special report, "MONEY Audits the IRS," aroused deep passions in most of you who sent mail. You praised us for criticizing the agency's "wasteful expenditures, inadequate service and at times unrepentant abuse of decent, hard-working individuals" like Yvonne Wade (pictured at right). "I read your article on the IRS (is there an S???). Great job, long overdue!" wrote George W. Baldwin of Brockton, Mass. Another typical response came from a man who asked us not to publish his name because he feared Internal Revenue Service retribution. "Ross Perot was right," he wrote. "Eliminate the IRS. They are too powerful and serve no purpose other than to harass people." Still, several readers defended the IRS. In the interest of fairness, we are publishing two of those letters here.

Your criticism of the IRS was interesting and accurate as far as it went but also unfair. Certainly, the IRS is poorly run, mismanaged and error-prone. But frankly, what do you expect? Put yourself in their shoes. Your boss (Congress--and by extension the American people) constantly berates you, threatens to put you out of business, complains about everything you do and expresses outright hatred for you. At the same time, you are underpaid and your working conditions are often unacceptable and demeaning. Do we really want the caring, capable and efficient IRS that your article would suggest? If so, we must pay attention to an apt cliche--you get what you pay for. KALMAN A. BARSON Bridgewater, N.J.

From personal experience I can't agree with your criticism of the IRS and praise for the New York State tax department. I've had a terrible time getting New York to even respond to my correspondence. But my IRS audit was painless (as painless as that process can be) because they were reasonable and removed penalties after I offered explanations. SUZANNE CORBER New York City

GARDEN SPOT: NEWARK

Your Forecast 1997 issue ranks Newark, N.J. as America's most dangerous city. But cities with higher rates of assault, murder or rape are somehow considered by you to be safer than Newark. Additionally, your idea that Newark and our nation's other older urban centers can be compared with suburban locales like your "safest city," Amherst, N.Y., is flawed. Clearly, our urban cores face challenges that the suburbs do not. Perhaps your future surveys can compare apples to apples.

Every day, people decide whether to live and work in cities like Newark. Community organizations and nonprofit groups struggling to revitalize our urban centers must choose whether to battle flagging morale and continue their work despite limited resources. Companies decide whether to expand in or move to a city, possibly providing employment opportunities there. Your sweeping and inaccurate judgment of Newark affects all of these decisions, jeopardizing the one resource our cities need more than any other: dedicated private and corporate citizens.

I appreciate your mentioning that Newark's violent crime rate for the first nine months of 1996 was down 18% from the same period in 1995, and I hope that you and your readers will be interested to learn of the city's other improvements. For example, auto thefts are down 18%, burglaries are down 23% and robberies are down 26%. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN Governor New Jersey

FIGHTING A CREDIT-CARD FEE

I've always listened to MONEY's advice about trying to negotiate a better deal from your credit-card company. I did it again when my company charged me a $25 annual fee because I pay in full each month to avoid finance charges, a fee you criticized in November's In Your Interest. Well, it took persistence, but they waived the $25 charge. Thanks. ROBERT CLARKE Miami