From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 13 Sep 1992 16:10:09 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <21511@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <18p8dtINNomc@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

>Actually, it a ratio between taxes paid by the top 1% and the bottom
>50%.  And the ratio is (drum-roll) $240.20 in taxes paid by the highest
>1% for every dollar paid in taxes by the lowest 50%.

This is N O T a measurement taken "per dollar earned". You (finally)
admit that and somehow think this is a great victory for you.
It is per dollar paid, or, in simpler, less deceptive English, the rich
person paid 240 times as much as the poor one. A per capita statistic,
not  per dollar earned.

>Huh?  I've been very careful NOT to describe how that figure was
>produced simply because I didn't have the article in front of me.  Now
>I do, and now you know what it was created.  By the way, the ratio in
>1981 was 117.89 to 1.  And before you jump up and down about how that
>is because now more people are in "poverty", in 1981 19.7% of the
>population had income below $15K, compared to 18% in 1989.  That is in
>fixed dollars, by the way.

You originally said that the 200x statistic was based "per dollar
earned". Don't bother to deny it; it's on my disk. Although you are
still not entirely clear, from the long table I posted it appears that
you have a per capita statistic. As I (carefully again) explained in my
last post, the statistic you have here does not BY ITSELF measure "tax
fairness", because it does not take into account the change in income
distribution. I am not going to say that the difference is because of
increased poverty. I AM going to say that there is nothing you have
posted to preclude the following: In 1981 the "rich" person made 100
times as much as the "poor" person but in 1987 the ration was 1million.
So the increase in taxes didn't "keep up" with the increase in income.
Now, the 100 and 1million figures are bogus, my point is that "fairness"
can not be judged independenetly of the actual number, whatever they
may be.

>Oh - I found this in there too:  In 1977 60% of the public had an income
>between $15K and $50K.  By the end of Carter's term, that was down to
>58.6%.  The "super rich" - they rose from 21.1% to a whopping 21.6%.
>THAT is an example of "The poor got poorer."  Under Reagan, not only did
>the rich get richer (from 21.6% to 29%), but the poor got richer, too
>(from 19.9% to 18.0%).

Probably you are misunderstanding the figures. For example, are these
also in constant dollars? I may or may not have time to investigate it.
Instead lets look at another concession of yours disguised as a
victory.

>>Those earning $40K plus are about 53% of the total national AGI and they
>>pay about 70% of the income tax. So the rich half pays just over twice
>>in income tax what the poorer half does. So much for "200 times per
>>dollar earned". So much for your 97/3 split -- it's 70/30 !

Ooops. You couldn't refute this at all. Let me remind people that the
97/3 figure was obtained by crediting the top 15% of taxpayers (who pay
half of the tax) with the amount of tax paid by the top half of the
population. A complete nonsense number.

>>I notice you no longer mention anything about the Earned Income Credit.
>>Did you double-check and discover that it doesn't even apply to persons
>>without dependents?

>So?  I didn't mention that the blind and aged get free handouts either.
>Is this supposed to mean something?  Actually, it DOES mean something.
>It means that a person making $10K per year without a kid has fewer
>expenses.

(1) Usually conservatives don't view exemptions like the blind's as a
handout. By that definition the mortgage interest deduction, adjustments
for moving, health expense deductions, etc. all become handouts.
That's funny, I thought you conservative guys decried the attitude that
all the money belongs to the government and any special thing on taxes
is a handout. (2) Your previous statements about EIC was simply wrong as
matters of fact. You left out that one must have dependents and that it
is means tested. Incidentally, the tax figures I posted were corrected
for EIC.

>I think you'll find a serving of Crow at the top of this article.  Now
>run along.

Actually, this is sometimes tedious, but I want you to know I'm on to
you. I hope I can make the rest of the net see of you what Mary McCarthy
said of Lillian Hellman: "Every word she says is a lie, including 'and'
and 'the'".

andy
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton