From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic plan attacked (Wall Street Journal Aug 5)
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:28:08 GMT

In article <BtHuDE.5II@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>In article <67+nz3d.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.051414.20800@sdf.lonestar.org> thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt) writes:
>>>>If you are really intersted in reducing the tax load on the poor, how about
>>>>dismantling the FICA taxes? Fo the poor, these are the largest tax load
>>>>they carry, and for the folks that make more than $55K and som change,
>>>>it stops. In other words it is a regressive tax in all senses of the 
>>>>definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I have to agree with you on this one, Richard.  The structuring of 
>>>FICA taxes is insane.  The way I would index it would be to *eliminate* the tax
>>>for people below the poverty line and set a flat tax for incomes up to 
>>>$100K above the poverty line. This way, it doesn't hit anyone too hard, unless
>>>you so happen to make an income at exactly the cutoff point.  One other place
>>>that has to be fixed is the double tax that self-employed people have to pay.
>>>This area is one of particular interest to me, and I am quite angry with 
>>>*BOTH* presidential candidates for completely ignoring the issue.
>>
>>
>>I would like to see the FICA tax eliminated entirely from the paycheck stub.
>>It seems to me that since the money just goes into the general fund anyway
>>these days (I think) that we should just do away with the separate, regressive,
>>tax item. Instead, the money should simply be called Federal Income Tax and
>>just bump up the Income tax rate a tad to cover it. In this way the tax could
>>be shifted away from being a regressive tax and the poor could get a much
>>needed break.
>>
>>So I am proposing merging the two taxes into the umbrella of the Income Tax and 
>>to discontinue having the ~$55K ceiling on it since it would be buried
>>int he Income Tax anyway and making adjustments in the tax rates would
>>be able to provide the effect if still desired.
>
>    I agree.  We need to eliminate this draconian %15 surtax on the poor
>    as well as middle class, and replace it with a flat rate income tax.
>    The first ~$8-10,000 of one's income should be exempt from taxes
>    altogether.
>
>-- 

Only one thing that I would have to add if this were done. The SS allocation
would be one that would be a "safe" tax that Congress (or OMB) couldn't get 
their hands on to "reduce the deficit!" or whatever politically important
expenditure there might happen to be during that particular week. 

BTW, could someone tell me how this particular area could be on its "last legs",or generally in real trouble if it is showing a $20Billion *PROFIT* during the
past year?  Am I missing something in the new math??




>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom H.

-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP