From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:27:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <18p8dtINNomc@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>I suggested that this number was completely impossible. Since the
>maximum tax rate is 31%, it implies that the poor pay less than
>one-fourth of a cent on the dollar in income tax.. Obviously whatever
>number Haugh has in mind, it is not measured by "per dollar earned". It
>must be some sort of aggregate.

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%.

>Your premise is F A L S E. The following is excerpted from Statistical
>Abstracts of the US, 1990 edition, table 511. It is the figures for 1987. But
>anyway, notice how your 200 has fallen to 32.3. The correct figure, we
>will see, is about 2.

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.

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%).

>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 !

Again, since I didn't say how the 200x figure was produced, you have
shown nothing.  Now I have shown how it was created.  Now you can talk
about it being meaningful or not.

>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.

>Basically, what the hell are you talking about? It took me an hour to
>type this stuff in, so do us all a favor and tell us what numbers you
>are misinterpreting and where you are getting them.

I think you'll find a serving of Crow at the top of this article.  Now
run along.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard