From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:38:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug12.103221.1442@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
>>
>Bzzt- the issue is that the rich tend to pay a lower *percentage*
>of their income in taxes than the middle class. It's criminal

If the taxes that we refer to are income taxes, your statement is false.
If you toss in FICA (the most ludicrous tax ever created, Thanks, FDR)
then your statement is true. If we also toss in taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco
and gasoline, your statement is also true. Which one d you mean? I was
only talking about federal income tax because that had been the topic
of discussion. If you want to switch discussions, please inform us so
that we are all talking about the same thing.

>that someone making 20-30 thousand a year pays almost twice the percentage
>of their income that someone making 1 million. Who do you 
>think has more disposable income??? You deliberately choose
>to stick to dollar amounts because you know that in the only 
>figure that counts- the percentage of an individuals income
>that goes to taxes, the rich DO pay less. If things were truly

Wait a minute, I said they pay more. The numbers said they pay more
dollar wise and percentage wise. How about re-reading the original
posting, and revising your critique?

>equal everyone would pay the same percentage, the rich are paying less
>so they DID get a tax break. End of story.
>
Are you on drugs or are you just stupid? How about re-reading the
posting, quoting it accurately and re-assessing your statements?
You have grossly misrepresented what was stated in PLAIN ENGLISH.

One more time so you folks can that cannot read get the chance:
The entire country got a tax break in the '80s (even the rich).
The government collected more dollars in taxes as a result. The
proportion of the income tax load carried by the rich *increased*.
The dollar figure the rich paid in income taxes *increased*.

Another net poster cited a contrived example wherein he
suggested that the statistics I quoted from the Wall Street
Journal were covering up what really happened. In his contrived example,
he assumed for the sake of argument that the rich had their
income double and had their net income rise 121% (remember,
*everyone* got a tax break, even the rich). He also assumed that
the poor had their income increase only 12.5% but had their
net income rise 15% (remember *everyone* got a tax break). I simply
analyzed his contrived example and pointed out that the ratio of
net income rise to gross income rise was essentially equal in
both examples (1.21 versus 1.2). I also pointed out that it was
unrealistic to assume that the poor only saw a  15% increase over ten years.

Now you know how we got to where we are.





-- 
Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk     "No more new laws"       (408) 253 4541 fax

We have entirely too much complexity in our laws, codes, and regulations.
Even the IRS cannot understand their own regulations. I propose that we
pass a constitutional amendment that requires two laws to be eliminated
for every new one that is passed. Ok guys, pass all the ones you want, 
but you better pick them carefully.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections