From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
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: 6 Nov 92 03:19:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <Bx96p8.AKL@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <Wa==ag@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.072015.16063@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Nov5.024432.8138@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> >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.
>>|> 
>>
>>There is no doubt that there are wealthy individuals who get benefits
>>from the government, particularly through farm subsidies.  However, the
>                                                            ^^^^^^^  ^^^
>>solution is to eliminate the subsidies, not increase taxes on some group
> ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^  ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
>>because others in the group receive subsidies.  As for Social Security,
>>it is very much a *middle class* entitlement.  The millionaire gets no
>>more than the person earning $50,000.  Upper income earners see a lower
>>return on their dollar than lower and middle income earners.  Even if
>>Social Security primarily benefitted the wealthy, the solution is to
>                                                   ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^
>>eliminate the program, not raise taxes.
> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^  ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
>
>This simple argument is anathema to the Democratic Party.  They
>absolutely refuse to believe that anything other than increased
>involvement by the government in economic affairs could possibly
>be the right answer.
>
>As far as Social Security goes, it is merely a pyramid scheme which
>allows the government to fraudulently understate the size of the
>budget deficit, and more importantly, the magnitude of the National
>Debt.  This program should be phased out entirely; I think almost 
>everyone would be better off were they allowed to invest their money 
>as they see fit, rather than having it stolen by the government to 
>finance its debt.
>
>>|> >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.  
>>|> 
>>
>>You're on the right track, however I disagree about VAT.  The corporate
>>tax should be eliminated.  The income tax should be eliminated and
>>replaced with a consumption based tax with a base level exclusion.
>
>Absolutely!  Start basing taxes on CONSUMPTION and not INCOME, and
>the money saved by people in this country will sky-rocket to a level 
>likely higher than anywhere in the world.  Many analysts consider 
>the lack of investment capital in the United States to be a serious 
>brake on economic expansion.  As far as I can tell, the three major 
>reasons for this shortfall are/were:
>
>  1) The Federal budget deficit; competes with industry for funds.
>
>  2) The personal income tax, which provides a disincentive to use
>     existing capital for investments.
>
>  3) A tax deduction for interest on consumer debt.  Thankfully,
>     this idiotic incentive to go into debt and profligately
>     spend rather than invest was finally eliminated by the
>     Feds some years ago.  Who was the _idiot_ who suggested this
>     anyway?  Was this part of "voodoo economics"?
>
>The biggest reason I hate income tax is that when you invest,
>you are taxed again on your money.  You _already_paid_your_taxes_
>when you made the money in the first place; I cannot find any
>reasonable justification for paying twice.  Please enlighten me.
>
>>Social Security should be phased out and individuals should be allowed
>>to invest their retirement funds in investments which they, not the
>>government, own.
                   

I agree with this in the case where the person can put aside a
certain amount of money (to be determined later) that cannot be
used until retirement.  However, there are a large percentage of
Americans that do not have the common sense to do this and these
are the ones that need the Social Security System.  


I am still amazed by the number of people that consider their tax refund 
as a "good" thing and somewhat of a "gift from the government".
(I hardly considering giving the government an interest-free loan a 
"good" thing.) 

-- 
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state