From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 01:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.183308.14033@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> (Frank Crary) writes:
|It benifits [sic] everyone who wants to buy cheap food, a number of poor
|workers in the industry, and a small fraction of the rich (who are involved in
|that industry). Therefore, the rich benifit [sic] more? That seems like it
|benifits [sic] _all_ the poor and a few of the rich.

You are correct, but only that there are much fewer rich people than poor in
general, always have been and probably always will.  Also, this is only a
single example of which there are many more, but I don't want to reduce this to
an argument against fair profit for industriousness.  That's not my point.

|With the requirement that untested drugs have a big, "Danger: Untested and
|with Unknown Side Effects" lable [sic] on them, yes. I'd prefer the consumers
|to make such decisions, instead of the government. At least, then, medical
|costs and insurance would be affordable by more people.

That'll go real far for boosting consumer confidence!  The fact is that we
rely on specialists to test new drugs because most people don't have the
expertise or the time.  Would you ACTUALLY be willing to use an untested drug
because it was cheaper?  And if you won't, why do you expect that anyone else
would?

I assume you are not so naive as to suggest that we eliminate both acute and
chronic toxicity testing, but even in the chronic case, toxicity testing is not
problem that will fall easily to some retinitis pigmentosiod view of the free
market.  Even if you could pay an independent lab to do the necessary testing,
you must make your profit either from the producers or the consumers.  So, you
plan to market an exclusive newsletter for those drug users who can afford it?
Or perhaps you try to sell the drug company the information that Qualicon-QB,
which they've made a bundle on over past two years (since there's nothing
to stop them from selling while you're testing), should be pulled from the
market to limit their liability?  Recent suits against RJ Reynolds should
demonstrate that printing a warning is not enough to protect you from
liability.

|>Well, titles DO provide one way of enforcing auto ownership, by establishing
|>an independent arbiter over ownership issues.  
|
|Hardly a major benefit.

Hardly a major cost, either.  Title fees on my car were an insignificant part
of the cost, and I just renewed my registration in Oregon for two years for $30.
In Europe, registration fees are dependent on engine size and about to a usage
fee for the carbon dioxide burden you're likely to contribute.

|>And licenses DO correctly identify
|>vehicle operation as a privilege, not a right.  That enables defenders of the
|>public peace to deny that privilege to operators who have proved themselves
|>too irresponsible or incompetent. 
|
|Totally irrelevant: The holder of the license doesn't benefit from this.
|Nor is it needed for the purpose you mention: The courts can deny
|_rights_, even Constitutionally protected rights, to convicted criminals.

Hardly irrelevant.  The safety of everyone on the roads is benefited by having
some control over who is permitted to drive.  A vehicle operators license
serves both as an acknowledgement of that privilege and as an indentification.
Enforcement of the privilege would be a lot tougher without them.  As far as
courts denying rights, our hierarchy of courts is designed specifically to
prevent the denial of our rights without due process.  The last three words are
the important part of that statement.  Constitutional rights may be denied only
insofar as they conflict with other constitutional rights or other tenets of
the constitution (e.g., a convicted felon is denied the right to vote).

|>Of the $1.4 trillion, 22% will go to military spending which,...
|
|If you look carefully, very little of this money goes into the pockets of 
|the rich. Most goes to paying (usually poor) troops, and to supplies
|such as food, fuel, etc... Even of the government contract waste, most
|is exactly that: Money _contractors_ have to waste on useless, regulation-
|mandated tests (thence a toilet seat specifically tested, at great expense,
|to survive a nuclear blast...) Very little of this money goes into
|lining the pockets of the rich. What does, should be eliminated, not
|used as an excuse for unfair taxes.

Well, I don't have the figures sitting right here in front of me, and I suspect
that neither do you.  But I do know that military procurement amounts to a
healthy chunk of military spending, from companies trained to account on a
cost-plus basis producing more overruns than on-budget equipment, to stockpiles
that use taxpayer money to warehouse obsolete equipment, to domestic military
bases whose only reason for existance is to support the local economy, to
examples of NIH in the outright competition between military branches to design
and procure the same sorts of military equipment, like all-weather attack
aircraft.  Some portion of these funds do find their way into the hands of low
income people, but the vast majority goes to skilled laborers, engineers
(neither of which are generally considered low income) and still more to the
managers and company owners.  I don't suggest that they do not deserve at least
some of this, but the question is not why, but who.

|>Of the $1.4 trillion, 15% will go to mandatory spending, principally federal
|>deposit insurance and national debt interest.
|
|The interest on the debt benefits no one, rich or poor (and is more than
|15%...) The deposit insurance is only a significant cost because of
|corruption and theft by the savings and loan industry. Again, this 
|should be avoided, not used as an excuse to tax the rich.

Wrong again.  The interest on the debt certainly benefits the investors who are
collecting that interest, who are almost exclusively rich.  And regarding the
%15, the Office of Management and Budget Mid-session Review (July 24, 1992)
identified that $210 billion (14.9% of this year's federal spending) will be
required to pay for federal deposit insurance and interest payments on the
national debt.  Do you have figures which contradict these?

Regardless of the corruption and theft, it is the rich by far who have
benefited from the savings and loan debacle, and the poor and middle income who
have been left to foot the bill.

|>Of the $1.4 trillion, 46% will go to entitlements, which include Social
|>Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and the Commodity Credit Corporation.
|>None of these programs constrain their benefits by ability to pay, so the
|>rich, up to the limits imposed by these programs, benefit as much as anybody,
|>while the poor, not having the income to "max out" on social security
|>payments, reasonably get less of a benefit.
|
|No, they don't get less benefit: The rich and poor pay just as much into these
|programs, and take just as much out.

Wrong.  Social security taxes are collected as a percentage of your income, and
like any other pension program, your benefits are pegged to the amount you paid
into the program over the course of your contributions.  Thus the poor pay less
into it, but they also get less out of it.

|>The Commodity Credit Corporation ...
|
|I don't think you will find many rich people arguing _for_ farm subsidies.
|So, apparently, not many of them feel they benefit from it. Why not 
|remove this program entirely: All but a few industrial farmers would
|benefit. The poor would especially benefit, since the cost of food would
|fall, and make life easier on them. This doesn't seem like a good excuse
|to over-tax the rich.

You seem repeatedly mistaken that I approve of all these programs, which I do
not.  But the question at hand is: who benefits from these tax supported
programs.  Regarding this question, you obviously haven't talked to the tobacco
lobby, or the dairy industry, or the wheat growers.  And on top of these, don't
forget the agribusinesses of California's central valley who have received
millions in subsidies through irrigation development projects that have turned
arid high deserts into cash cows.

|>Of the $1.4 trillion, 15% goes to Domestic Discretionary Spending ...
|>
|>Head Start directly benefits the poor, but it also reduces subsequent
|>education costs, benefiting us all.
|
|It benefits the poor directly, and _everyone_ indirectly. Overall, that
|sounds like it benefits the poor more than the rich.

It is a small program, cut in half by Reagan, and halved again by Bush, who
only recently reversed his cut.  The direct benefit is to poor children, but
the indirect benefit to schools who must further educate them should not be
discounted.

|>Environmental cleanup includes such things as the superfund, where corporate
|>polluters often manage to get the government to pay at least a portion of the
|>cost of cleaning up their messes (after a suitable time of litigation so that
|>the pollution really gets engrained in the environment), thereby increasing
|>their wealth.
|
|Again, an abuse that should not be allowed, as opposed to your suggestion:
|Allowing it, and using it as an excuse to tax the rich.

I'm not suggesting anything.  I'm just telling you where the money goes.  If it
were up to me, we'd regulate the hell out of these polluting industries, and
put them out of business if they were not able to produce their products
without fouling our streams, ground waters and air.

|>Bush's hotel residence in Texas has been in the press enough, I'm surprised
|>not everyone has heard about it, or about how he shelters his income by
|>maintaining it.
|
|That he _has_ such a residence, I've certainly heard. But this is the
|first time I've heard the doubtfull [sic] explanation that he uses it as a
|tax shelter. If that were his primary reason, there are many easier
|ways he could do it.

Name one.  The fact is that for years Texas, because of oil industry revenues,
has had no income tax, and they have lax residency requirements.

|>Hardly.  The highest federal tax bracket this year is %31. ...
|
|I'm afraid this isn't the case: The capital gains tax is paid in addition to
|federal taxes.

Do I really need to do this?  Well, yes, since somebody else out there might
believe your delusions, pull out your 1991 form 1040 schedule D.  Part I,
Short-Term Capital Gains and Losses are accumulated to line 7.  Part II,
Long-Term Capital Gains and Losses are accumulated to line 16.  Part III, sum
lines 7 and 16.  If the sum is less than some threshold (see below) but greater
than -$3,000, enter it on Form 1040, line 13--that is below an income
threshold ($49,300 for single, $82,150 for join returns), capital gains are
treated (and taxed) like ordinary income.  There is no %28 surcharge.

If you're over the threshold, we move on to Part IV, Tax Computation Using
Maximum Capital Gains Rate:

  Line 19 is taxable income (including net capital gains) from 1040 line 37.

  Line 20 is the smaller of long term capital gains (line 16) or net capital 
  gains (line 17).

  Line 21 is taxable income minus net capital gains (or long term capital
  gains) (line 19 - line 20).

  Line 22 a non capital gains taxable income threshold ($20,350 for single,
  $34,000 for joint returns).

  Line 23 is your non capital gains taxable income (the greater of lines 21 or
  22).

  Line 24 is your taxable capital gains income (line 19 - line 23).

  Line 25 is the tax on your non capital gains taxable income (line 23)

  Line 26 is the tax or your taxable capital gains income (%28 of line 24)

  Line 27 is your tax, the sum of lines 25 and 26, copied to form 1040 line 38.

Thus, if you are single and made over $49,300 AND you have both short and long
term capital gains (a requirement for using the Maximum tables), your income
exclusive of capital gains will be taxed at a marginal rate of %31 (your base
base tax is $11,158.50, or %22.6) and your capital gains, regardless of how
much, will be taxed at $28.

After this exposition, I can only suggest that before you shoot off in the
future, that you check your facts.  I may make some statements that you find
less than truthful, but I at least make SOME effort to speak the truth.  That
does not appear to be the case with you.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

I've been put on jury duty for a rather insane case.  6000 ants dressed up
as rice had robbed a chinese grocery.  I don't think they did it.  I know
a few of them and they wouldn't do anything like that
--Steve Wright
________________________________________________________________________________