From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sales taxes and FICA (was Re: Raising taxes on the poor.)
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:12:35 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1665@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>>
>>Take an example.  Two families of four.  One making $20,000 (subsistance).
>>The other making $100,000 (rich?, comfortable?).  
>
>But wait:  you're making up numbers here, aren't you?

There are families who make $20,000 per year.  There are families who make
$100,000 per year.  Prove that there are no families that make $20,000 per
year, or prove that there are nor families that make $100,000 per year, or
show that these numbers are outside of the normal income range, and then
you can complain about making up numbers.  (If we were talking about
statistics, like how many families make only $20,000 versus how many
families make $100,000, then you'd be more than justified in protesting
made up numbers.  But that's not the case.  There are families with those
income levels, in almost every part of the country.)

>>Family #1:  Has to use $8,000 per year on food to survive 
>>(~$5/day/person).  If the tax on this is 5%, then they pay $400, 
>>or 2% of their total income (start rolling in other consumption 
>>taxes like those on clothing needed for schoold & work, and the 
>>percentage of total income really jumps!)
>
>But wait:  aren't you making these nubmers up again?  And what about
>FICA, which is an even *larger* proportion of their total income.

Having been on my own now for four years, I can tell you that $5 per day
per person is a very reasonable, even low estimate of the cost of food.
It's not a made up number - it's a typical number.

>>This couldn't be any more unfair!  A family barely surviving paying
>>2%, and a rich/comfortable paying 0.8%.  (Anyone with the actual
>>numbers of what the current tax rate is & what families of different
>>income levels pay for groceries would be greatly appreciated).
>
>I agree, so until somebody posts them, DON'T MAKE THE NUMBERS UP.  You
>could end up embarassing yourself.  I wouldn't be surprised in the
>least if Arkansas had a pretty baroque tax system, but I can assure
>you that California has one that is at least as weird, and probably at
>least as regressive, despite the actions of a decade of Republican
>governors.
>
The numbers aren't made up - they're typical numbers.  Unfortunately,
regressive taxation seems to be a staple of politicians everywhere, of
whatever party.  Here in Massachusetts we have ridiculously high auto
registry fees (I paid almost $80 for a drivers license!), which I consider
to be a regressive taxation on automobile owners, which is most of us.
Most of these fees increased dramatically under the Republican Weld
Administration.  I asked some questions and found out that the fees are
entirely within the jurisdiction of the executive branch (the legislative
branch plays no part), so Weld himself bears full responsibility for
signing them into law.  On the other hand, I think fees were probably fairly
high under Dukakis as well.

    - Dave Borden
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17350 alt.politics.bush:9520 alt.politics.clinton:11029 alt.politics.perot:2299