From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:16:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <LARRY.92Sep28081726@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.182122.6964@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>   In article <AWERLING.92Sep18203048@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>   >
>   >Clinton hasn't done any "rich bashing."
>
>   How about, "The rich have gotten an unfair break for the last 12 years.  
>   I'm going to raise taxes on the top 2%."
>
>Good idea if you ask me. With the top 2% owning such a grand piece of 
>the economic pie, they can afford it.
>
>   Off the subject a little, how long do you think the government could 
>   run if they doubled taxes on those earning over $200,000?  Six weeks.
>
>I've heard these same tired arguments again and again: "You can't tax
>corporations - all they do is pass the tax on and hurt the consumer, or
>lay people off". And, "if you took ALL the money from the rich, it
>would only run the government for XXX days anyway."

You keep hearing these arguments but you don't listen. The point is that all
these politicians, like Bill Clinton and his Democratic allies in Congress,
who promise us the cookie jar and promise to send the bill to "the rich" are,
at best, mistaken and, at worst, bald-faced liars.  The money just isn't
there.  If we want the cookie jar we are going to pay for it and it's
dishonest to suggest otherwise.

>
>So? No one is demanding ALL the money from the rich. They just want the
>rich to pay a fair, reasonable share of taxes. If the middle class has to 
>pay ever increasing taxes, then why shouldn't the wealthy also (who seem to
>have an inordinate amount of political and legal power anyway)? I'm not
>arguing the justification for increasing taxes, I'm arguing that we all
>should bear our tax burdens with some degree of equity. When Grandma ends
>up paying a larger percentage of her retirement income to taxes than a large,
>profitable corporation, something is wrong.

How about if we pay in proportion to the benefits we receive.  Would that be
fair?  In that case the middle class, the primary beneficiaries of government
largess, should experience a massive tax hike.  But we keep letting ourselves
be fooled, because we want to be fooled, into believing that someone else can
and should pay the bill.  Grandma isn't paying a larger percentage of her
retirement income than a large, profitable corporation. The corporate income 
tax is 33%.  Grandma is paying 0% on her social security income and, at most,
31% on her other income.  And for this, she's not creating jobs, not supporting
families, and not producing anything for the greater good.  What's wrong is
that we've been sold the notion that the government is a bottomless money pit;
that all we need do is elect officials to shower us with cash and give the
bill to someone else, "the rich" or "future generations" - anyone but us. 

>
>The assumption is apparently that corporations and the rich are so righteous
>(by virtue of spending money to consume labor resources and goods, you see) 
>that they need to be excused from paying their fair share of tax. Seems
>like they ought to happily support a system which continues to provide 
>them with their great prosperity.

Righteous?  How about beneficial?  Two points need to be made.  First, a
corporation that consumes labor resources pays for those resources.  As Paul
Tsongas says, we can't love employment and hate employers.  And the goods they
produce make our lives possible.  I certainly don't know how to grow food,
make shoes, build cars . . .  Second, corporations DO NOT pay taxes.  Not a
dime.  Not a penny.  A corporation that can't raise the price of its goods by
enough to cover the tax goes out of business.  The tax is paid by the
consumers; that's you and me.  There's no way we can avoid the bill, whatever
Mr. Clinton would have us believe. As Harry Truman said, the buck stops here.

>
>L.
>"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
> I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
> Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
> (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Because the plot demands: an EVIL man!
>


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"If an aging America ever begins to lose its short-term memory, it will really
 be in trouble - because that's the only kind of memory this country seems to
 have.  There's a perpetual tendency to believe that whatever is going on at
 this particular moment is absolutely unique in human history, but will,
 paradoxically, continue now into the indefinite future.  Both assumptions are
 certain to be wrong, but meanwhile they have sent a passel of chickens
 scuttling hysterically around the U.S. barnyard."
  
                                                  Louis Rukeyser - 1992

===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6277 alt.politics.bush:7307 alt.politics.clinton:7944 alt.politics.elections:14747 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6119 talk.politics.misc:48764