From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:17:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <Wa==ag@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.072015.16063@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov5.024432.8138@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Not to my knowledge: Exactly which federal programs benifit the
>|> >rich more than the poor? A vert large chunk of the budget
>|> >goes to entitlement programs that benifit the poor exclusively.
>|> 
>|> Farm subsidies.  Defense pork.  Social Security.
>|> 
>
>There is no doubt that there are wealthy individuals who get benefits
>from the government, particularly through farm subsidies.  However, the
                                                            ^^^^^^^  ^^^
>solution is to eliminate the subsidies, not increase taxes on some group
 ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^  ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
>because others in the group receive subsidies.  As for Social Security,
>it is very much a *middle class* entitlement.  The millionaire gets no
>more than the person earning $50,000.  Upper income earners see a lower
>return on their dollar than lower and middle income earners.  Even if
>Social Security primarily benefitted the wealthy, the solution is to
                                                   ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^
>eliminate the program, not raise taxes.
 ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^  ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^

This simple argument is anathema to the Democratic Party.  They
absolutely refuse to believe that anything other than increased
involvement by the government in economic affairs could possibly
be the right answer.

As far as Social Security goes, it is merely a pyramid scheme which
allows the government to fraudulently understate the size of the
budget deficit, and more importantly, the magnitude of the National
Debt.  This program should be phased out entirely; I think almost 
everyone would be better off were they allowed to invest their money 
as they see fit, rather than having it stolen by the government to 
finance its debt.

>|> >How would you fee about a flat tax on all income above the 
>|> >cost of living? This addresses your points b and c: Everyone
>|> >would pay an equal and fair share of their disposable income.
>|> 
>|> And it could actually save money; first of all, it's much easier to
>|> raise revenue by eliminating loopholes than by raising tax rates.
>|> Secondly, for everyone except H&R Block, it would make tax-time much
>|> much nicer.  Less time wasted on tax preparation is more time to have
>|> fun/make money/stimulate the economy.
>|> 
>|> Then replace the corporate tax with a VAT.  
>|> 
>
>You're on the right track, however I disagree about VAT.  The corporate
>tax should be eliminated.  The income tax should be eliminated and
>replaced with a consumption based tax with a base level exclusion.

Absolutely!  Start basing taxes on CONSUMPTION and not INCOME, and
the money saved by people in this country will sky-rocket to a level 
likely higher than anywhere in the world.  Many analysts consider 
the lack of investment capital in the United States to be a serious 
brake on economic expansion.  As far as I can tell, the three major 
reasons for this shortfall are/were:

  1) The Federal budget deficit; competes with industry for funds.

  2) The personal income tax, which provides a disincentive to use
     existing capital for investments.

  3) A tax deduction for interest on consumer debt.  Thankfully,
     this idiotic incentive to go into debt and profligately
     spend rather than invest was finally eliminated by the
     Feds some years ago.  Who was the _idiot_ who suggested this
     anyway?  Was this part of "voodoo economics"?

The biggest reason I hate income tax is that when you invest,
you are taxed again on your money.  You _already_paid_your_taxes_
when you made the money in the first place; I cannot find any
reasonable justification for paying twice.  Please enlighten me.

>Social Security should be phased out and individuals should be allowed
>to invest their retirement funds in investments which they, not the
>government, own.

Oops, missed this the first time I read it.  Anyway, I agree
entirely as I stated above...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc