From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:12:42 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:
>		Income Tx
>AGI	#retrns Total	Tax as a  CUM      CUM        CUM TAX CUM % TAX
>(in $K)	(in $M)	(in $M)	  TX PAID  % TX PAID  RETURNS RETURNS
>0--1	3,724	96	N/A	       96    0.0        3,724   3.5
>1--3	7,423	179	3.9           275    0.0       11,147  10.4
>3--5	6,678	429	3.5           704    0.2       17,825  16.6
>5--7	6,413	994	4.1	    1,698    0.5       24,238  22.6
>7--9	6,309	1,788	5.4	    3,486    0.9       30,547  28.5
>9--11	5,957	2,585	6.1         6,071    1.6       36,504  34.1
>11--13	5,588	3,653	6.7         9,724    2.6       42,092  39.3
>13--15	5,303	4,699	7.0        14,423    3.9       47,395  44.3
>15--17	4,789	5,665	7.7        20,088    5.4       52,184  48.7
== median AGI ==
>17--19 4,487	6,283	8.0        26,371    7.1       56,671  52.9
>19--22	5,876	10,026	8.5        36,397    9.8       62,547  58.4
>22--25	5,306	11,377	9.3        47,774   12.9       67,853  63.4
>25--30	7,494	20,393	10.0       68,167   18.3       75,347  70.4
>30--40	11,605	42,832	10.7      110,999   29.9       86,952  81.2
>40--50	7,866	41,830	11.8      152,829   41.1       94,818  88.6
>50--75	8,144	70,134	14.5      222,963   60.0      102,962  96.2
>75--100 2,043	31,158	18.0      254,121   68.4      105,005  98.1
>100-200 1,520	43,632	21.7      297,753   80.1      106,525  99.5
>200-500 432	33,203	26.8      330,956   89.0      106,957  99.9
>500-1M	77	15,261	29.4      346,217   93.1      107,034  99.97
>1M +	36	25,491	29.3      371,708  100.0      107,070 100.00

[ Comment: AGI is NOT income.  It is a fake number that comes off of
  the tax forms.  You can know what the actual income was unless the
  actual income is given.  It isn't given here. ]

NOW we can draw some conclusions.  The top 50% of the taxpayers pay 95%
of the taxes.  Which means that the "overtaxed poor" lower 50% pay a
whopping 5% of the total income tax bill.  And the "super rich" 1% who
"don't pay enough taxes", pay 25% of the total.

This is why a tax-break for the lower-class will have no effect - they
already pay no taxes to speak of.  Next, as John Iacoletti has pointed
out, raising the taxes on the "super rich" simply will not work - sure,
you could take all of their money, but how long can that last?  And if
you DID take all of their money, you'd raise $38B more in taxes.  With
a $1,400B budget, $38B is enough to run the country for 10 days.  (The
math might be wrong, there were a fair number of interpolations in
there.)  You just can't balance the budget on the backs of 1% of the
population.

And I shudder to think that Clinton thinks $66K for a tax paying household
is "super rich," because that is where the "top 1%" line falls.  Hell,
$66K is two mediocre paid college graduates with no kids.  $66K is two
people making $33K each.

Here are a few last little thoughts:

	"The Census Bureau's average income figures show that the
	 lowest fifth saw their family incomes _fall_  5 percent
	 from 1977 to 1981.  By contrast, from 1981 to 1989, those
	 incomes _rose_ 6 percent.  Similarly, the second fifth's
	 incomes fell 3 percent under Carter, and rose 9 percent
	 under the Reagan policies."
		-- Warren T. Brookes, 6/2/91

In the Carter system, the poor got poorer.  With Reagan/Bush in the
White House, the poor got considerably richer.

	PCT 	< 15K		15K -> 50K	> 50K
			(constant 1989 dollars)

1973		18.2		61.2		20.5
1977		19.1		60.0		21.1
1981		19.9		58.6		21.6
1985		19.7		55.5		24.7
1989		18.0		52.9		29.0

[ same source as previous quote, also based on Census figures ]

Under Carter/Mondale, the only group which got richer were those that
were already rich; the lower class grew, and the middle class shrunk.
Under Reagan/Bush, there was upward mobility for both the lower and
middle classes, with both the middle and lower classes growing smaller
while the upper class got larger.  The myth that a small number of
people profited during the Reagan/Bush administration is only true if
you define "small" as 29% of the population.

If Clinton's policies are the reversal of Reagan/Bush, we will see a
return to Carter/Mondale era poverty levels.  It is the most logical
conclusion one can reach.  Ask yourself, if you are one of those people
now making over $50K, are you really ready to move back down?  Those of
you making $15 to $50K, the answer is almost certainly "no" if you were
asked if you want to stay where you are today.
-- 
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