From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CRISP: WHY ARE YOU HIDING?
Keywords: sleaze, quentin crisp
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:07:38 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <5t0mzla.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
- Here is a quick "partial response". Time doesn't permit me to do
- justice to all that was posted at the moment, but more will follow....

Still waiting for that "more to follow" Mr. Crisp. Not that I expect
you to substantiate your claims; you have consistantly shown yourself
to be the kind of guy who makes some distortions, tells some lies, and
then when someone calls you on it you just drop the subject. 

- From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
- Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
- Message-ID: <1992Aug11.161250.2483@news.Hawaii.Edu>
- Sender: root@news.Hawaii.Edu (News Service)
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:12:50 GMT
- Lines: 21
- 
- In article <19642@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
- }The biggest problem I have with all this discussion on taxing the rich is
- }the basic philosophy that we are all equal (the Dems theme song).  Why do
- }we tax someone at a higher rate, just because they have more?  ...
- 
- The question answers itself.  The more you have, the more the government
- can get from you in taxes.  To maximize tax revenues, the top bracket
- should be 100%, but to preserve incentives to increase wealth, the government
- must stop short of that.
- 
- }The second
- }biggest theme of the Dems is fairness, is it fair to take more just because 
- }you have more?
- }...
- 
- No, I wouldn't say so.  But it's feasible.  I dismiss all the talk about
- fairness as mere campaign rhetoric, myself.
- 
- 				-- A. Liberal Democrat
- --
- Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
- 
- ----------end of included article ----
- 
- He doesn't say we MUST have a 100% tax rate, but proposes it as
- a means for maximizing tax revenues. How short of 100% does he suggest
- we should stop? I submit not very far judging by the tone of the 
- post.......
- 
- 
- Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com

Well, Mr Crisp, I wrote to Greg, and it seems you've misinterpreted
him (a common failing of yours, I might add). So i'd say you're 0 for
3. However, you stated above that "more will follow..." I eagerly
await that. Below is Greg's response:


|Return-Path: <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
|From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
|Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:22:15 HST
|In-Reply-To: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
|       "sincerity or sarcasm??" (Aug 20,  8:55am)
||X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
|To: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
|Subject: Re: sincerity or sarcasm??
|
|} Greg: you have been quoted (the fragment is below) as being an advocate
|} of a 100% tax rate. Personally, when I read it, I thought you were being
|} ironic, but I hope you will take the time to explain yourself in your
|} own words. ...
|
|} # The question answers itself.  The more you have, the more the government
|} # can get from you in taxes.  To maximize tax revenues, the top bracket
|} # should be 100%, but to preserve incentives to increase wealth, the government
|} # must stop short of that.
|
|I was not being ironic.  I don't understand what requires explanation.
|I mentioned a top bracket of 100%, not a rate, and I said that the top
|bracket must be less than 100%.  That does not amount to "being an advocate
|of a 100% tax rate", does it?  Less than 100% is necessarily different from
|100%.
|
|
|    -- Greg, lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu (lee@uhunix on Bitnet)

							- Lee Campbell