From: horwath@rtsg.mot.com (George Horwath)
Subject: Re: DEBATE: Statement - 10/19/92
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:39:33 GMT

PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>In article <0exeM0a00iUz029bk9@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Dean Calloway <dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>>Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.african.american: 2-Nov-92 Re: DEBATE:
>>Statement - 10/.. by George Horwath@rtsg.mot.
>>> My point is that to get the best results (i.e. the most money) from a
>>>tax increase one must increase taxes on the majority of tax payers - and 
>>>that, is the middle class.
>>
>>NO!  The majority of the wealth in this country is held by the upper
>>fifth of the population.

>>It doesn't take a genius to realize that if
>>you institute a progressive tax scheme, you can realize revenue gains
>>while leaving the middle class unscathed.

>     But we're missing a itty-bitty piece to the puzzle here, which allows
>Clinton to suggest a 5% increase on "the rich" while still raking in the
>dough from rich supporters.

>     You see, as was clearly evident when someone posted Perot's tax
>percentage, percent taxed and percent paid are wildly different.  The bottom
>line is that the government has created a maze a complex tax systems in a
>desperate attempt to convince people to invest their money in the "right"
>things (Like Perot's tax free municipal bonds) in order to avoid
>burdonsome taxes.
>
>.....stuff deleted......
>
>     The rich are a peculiar breed, you see.  They've got enough money to
>tax, but given a choice, they'd just as soon pay it to lawyers to fight
>the government than let them take it.  That and they've got enough to hide.
>The poor haven't got the money.  The only people with the money to bother
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>taxing and who don't have enough to protect themselves are the middle
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>class, which is why they will, as they always do, get stuck.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     Clinton's perfectly safe offering an increase of 5% on the rich.  He
>knows full well they'll pay very little for it.


Thank you, Mr. Veal. Well said - my point exactly. If Mr. Clinton and his
party were to abolish the current income tax system and go to a "file
your return on a postcard" scheme where there are no deductions and a 
simple progressive income tax - send in the % of your income for your
bracket, I'd almost believe it. (No doubt there would still be arguments
about what "fair" and "progressive" really mean.)

But, they will NOT do this. The usual hocus-pocus will remain, and, in the
end, the middle class will have to pay more taxes. Mr. Calloway obviously
believes Mr. Clinton and his party; I do not. I base my disbelief on 
history - that's what happened in the past; I don't see any reason why
it should be different now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not the employer who pays the        |     Motorola
 wages - he only handles the money.         | I speak for myself,
 It is the customer who pays the wages."    |   not my employer
                             - Henry Ford   | horwath@rtsg.mot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc