From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:45:42 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <LARRY.92Sep28081726@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
]In article <1992Sep22.182122.6964@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
]   In article <AWERLING.92Sep18203048@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
]   >
]   >Clinton hasn't done any "rich bashing."
]
]   How about, "The rich have gotten an unfair break for the last 12 years.  
]   I'm going to raise taxes on the top 2%."
]
]Good idea if you ask me. With the top 2% owning such a grand piece of 
]the economic pie, they can afford it.
]
]   Off the subject a little, how long do you think the government could 
]   run if they doubled taxes on those earning over $200,000?  Six weeks.
]
]I've heard these same tired arguments again and again: "You can't tax
]corporations - all they do is pass the tax on and hurt the consumer, or
]lay people off". And, "if you took ALL the money from the rich, it
]would only run the government for XXX days anyway."
]
]So? No one is demanding ALL the money from the rich. They just want the
]rich to pay a fair, reasonable share of taxes. If the middle class has to 
]pay ever increasing taxes, then why shouldn't the wealthy also (who seem to
]have an inordinate amount of political and legal power anyway)? I'm not
]arguing the justification for increasing taxes, I'm arguing that we all
]should bear our tax burdens with some degree of equity. When Grandma ends
]up paying a larger percentage of her retirement income to taxes than a large,
]profitable corporation, something is wrong.

Yes, this would be true. However, it is not the case. The rich pay
far more than their share of the taxes, as do profitable corporations.
If you knew anything about tax law and how it works, you would realize that
the rich are paying a lot more of their income than anyone else.

But then, your arguments sound a lot like "from each according to
his abilities, to each acccording to his needs." Is that what you really
mean?
]
]The assumption is apparently that corporations and the rich are so righteous
](by virtue of spending money to consume labor resources and goods, you see) 
]that they need to be excused from paying their fair share of tax. Seems
]like they ought to happily support a system which continues to provide 
]them with their great prosperity.

First of all, you haven't defined "fair share." Second, you have
to realize that corporations always pass their taxes on - either to
their investors or to their customers. The customers are ordinary
people, and most of their investors (through their pension plans)
are also ordinary people. You simply do not shift the burden to
the "rich" by taxing corporations... what you do instead is shift
jobs and capital to the orient.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -