From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:20:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov5.024432.8138@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.161652.27663@colorado.edu> juola@bruno.cs.colorado.edu (Patrick Juola) writes:

>>>Is raising their taxes any more acceptable, just because they are
>>>a minority of the voters? By this logic, it is also acceptable to
>>>tax _any_ minority, if the majority feels like robbing them.

>>No, raising their taxes just because they are a minority is not
>>acceptable.  Raising their taxes because a) they get more service from
>>the government and should pay their way,

>Not to my knowledge: Exactly which federal programs benifit the
>rich more than the poor? A vert large chunk of the budget
>goes to entitlement programs that benifit the poor exclusively.

Farm subsidies.  Defense pork.  Social Security.

(As far as I can tell, the only programs that benefit the poor
exclusively are Medicaid, AFDC, Head Start, food stamps, and one or two
others.  These COMBINED are tiny.)

>> b) they generally pay less as
>>a percentage of their disposable income than the poor, and are therefore
>>not "shouldering their fair share of the burden", or 

>What, exactly, do you mean by "poor"? My income would classify
>me as lower middle class, and I pay under 5% of it in federal
>taxes. (Of course, you said "disposable". But what does that
>mean? If it means everything over the minimum cost of living,
>I'm still paying under 10% of disposable income. If you mean
>income beyond what is needed to live "comfortably" then no one
>except the upper middle class and the rich _has_ any disposable
>income: Your statement is a totology, since everyone but the
>rich pay an infinite fraction of their disposable income.) Can
>you honestly say the average "rich" person pays under 5 or 10% tax?

>>c) they can more
>>easily afford to make the necessary infrastructure investments is.

>How decides what is "necessary"? Under the current system, the
>majority decides what is "necessary" and forces a minority (the
>rich) to pay for it. Would you be opposed to letting the
>rich check off which programs their taxes may be spent on, so that
>those that pay also decide what is "necessary"?

>>The question, then, becomes which if any of a,b, and c are true.  I
>>personally feel that a (for example, how much more does it cost to insure
>>a $1,000,000 deposit than a $1,000 in an FSLIC bank)

>This assumes most of government spending goes to bank insurance. In 
>fact, this is an almost trivial fraction of the budget.

>>and b (this argument
>>is why sales tax is considered regressive, for example) are true, if not c.

>How would you fee about a flat tax on all income above the 
>cost of living? This addresses your points b and c: Everyone
>would pay an equal and fair share of their disposable income.

And it could actually save money; first of all, it's much easier to
raise revenue by eliminating loopholes than by raising tax rates.
Secondly, for everyone except H&R Block, it would make tax-time much
much nicer.  Less time wasted on tax preparation is more time to have
fun/make money/stimulate the economy.

Then replace the corporate tax with a VAT.  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.