From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:54:03 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> 
> Kenneth Mitchell <kmitche@eis.calstate.edu> writes:
> 
> > In 1981, the richest 1% of the poulation paid 28% of
> >the federal income tax. In 1991, the richest 1% pay 37%! This is a tax
> >cut? The tax RATE may have been cut, but TAXES PAID went up considerably.
> >On the lower end of the income scale, but tax RATES and TAXES PAID dropped
> >under Reagan. 
> 
> Oh, we pay taxes as a group, now? EACH PERSON pays taxes. The tax rate on
> EACH PERSON is what is important, because THAT PERSON is the one person
> who must pay THEIR OWN TAXES. The tax rate on the rich went down, YES THAT
> IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT, and that is what is important, as the tax rate paid
> by EACH RICH PERSON PAID was LOWER, THAT is what is important.
> 
> Sure, the "rich" as a group paid more in TOTAL taxes, because the RICH ARE
> GETTING RICHER and the more money you make the more taxes you pay (if you
> are honest).
> 
> Yes, I most certainly do call what happened in Reaganomics during Reagan's
> and Bush's tenures as a TAX CUT, as that is EXACTLY what is was.

Some people just don't know when to keep their mouths shut. Okay, for the
benefit of you who can't follow simple logic, here it is again.

When tax RATES were high, people would do ANYTHING LEGAL (and a lot of
things that WEREN'T!) to avoid paying taxes. That meant that they didn't
PAY a lot of taxes. They would even give up earning some income, because
the tax on the extra income was so high that it didn't make it worth
while. In a few rare cases, if you earned an extra dollar of income, you'd
pay as much as an extra 85 cents in taxes!

Reagan CUT TAX RATES. That meant that for each dollar of extra income, a
person got to keep a lot MORE of it; even 70 cents! This meant that people
would work harder and not worry so much about taxes, since they didn't
have to give it all to the government. So people DID work harder. And
since when rich people work harder, they generally end up hiring other
middle class people to work FOR them, this means that they created a lot
of new jobs. And they made LOTS of money. And they paid taxes on the new
money that they hadn't been making before (because it hadn't been
worthwhile) and since they were making a LOT of new money, they paid a LOT
of new taxes. So even though the government was getting a smaller share of
each pie, there were so many more pies that the government's share was
bigger than it had EVER been before. 

Then George Bush got elected. George listened to those mean old Democrats
like George Mitchell and Danny Rostenkowski, and RAISED tax rates. And
even though he didn't raise them a whole lot, he raised them enough to
scare people (especially since those mean old Democrats said they wanted
to raise them even more), and the rich people decided to start worrying
about how much money they were paying in taxes again, and how maybe they
should start looking for tax-free investments. And they stopped hiring
people to work for them, and even FIRED a bunch, because there wasn't as
much work to do. And the economy went into the dumpster. And it's all
George's fault. And even though tax RATES went UP, tax REVENUES FELL. 

Now Slick Willie sees that the REAL problem is that tax revenues have come
down, and figures that raising tax RATES is just the answer. So, after
George Bush and George Mitchell poisoned the economy, Slick Willie's
prescription is more arsenic!

> 
> >And if you'd like to roll tax rates back to 70% again, do you plan to
> >bring back the deductions that Reagan eliminated? Two sides of the same
> >coin; you can't really complain about cutting the tax rates if you were in
> >favor of eliminating the tax SHELTERS. Or could it be that you're really
> >as ignorant as you SEEM to be?
> 
> 70%!!! Whoever the hell said 70%!!! And no one has ever said they wanted
> to bring back any tax shelters. In fact, the Clinton Gore ticket is in favour
> of forcing foreign companies who do business in America to pay their fair
> share of taxes on money made in America.
> 

Marginal tax rates were 70%. there appears to be a LOT that you don't
know. 

> >
> >And how do you define "tax equity"? The top 1% of earners paying 37% of
> >the federal taxes isn't enough for you? In point of fact, if the federal
> >government were to confiscate EVERYTHING over $200,000 annual income, the
> >extra money wouldn't pay for half of Clinton's proposals. 
> 
> Again, you skew the figures to meet your agenda. The rich pay more of total
> taxes simply because they ARE rich! And, NO, I do not feel that they are
> currently paying their fair share.

Yes, the rich SHOULD pay the lion's share of the taxes, but you didn't
READ my post. in 1981, the richest 1% of people paid 28% of all taxes. In
1990, the richest 1% paid 37%! So not only did the total taxes paid by the
"rich" go up, but THEIR SHARE OF THE TOTAL ALSO INCREASED. Your final
sentance above reveals your true motive; a "dog-in-the-manger" jealousy. 


> In your accusation that the proposed tax increase would not pay for the
> porposed increases in spending IGNORES the PROPOSED CUTS which, along with
> the proposed tax increase will more than cover the proposed spending
> increased, thus LOWERING the deficit.

Oh, really. And how is it that YOU say Slick Willie is going to CUT
spending, while Slick Wille says he's going to INCREASE it?

 > 
> 
> >About health care; the government screws up most of what it touches. As a
> >career Navy man, I've seen more than enough government health care; and if
> >you think that Clinton's proposals will produce anything better than the
> >VA and "military medicine", then you'll believe ANYTHING. Want to buy a
> >bridge? 
> 
> Clinton/Gore is not proposing socialized medicine. Merely the availability
> of AFFORDABLE health insurance provided by PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
> Your comments are inconsistent with what Clinton's official position on
> health care is. HAVE YOU READ Clinton's plan? It is plainly obvious to
> me you haven't.

Sorry again, Zack; that's Bush's plan you're talking about. Sex & Gore
want government to supply the medical care. 

> 
> >And the fact that Bush has said some really stupid things doesn't make
> >Clinton any smarter. 
> 
> No, Bush's ignorance does not reflect on Clinton's intelligence. But Clinton's
> plan does speak well for him. It has been endorsed by six nobel prize winners
> in economics. 

And denounced by six others, including the most recent. 

> It has been endorsed by the Business and Professional Woman's
> PAC, several CEOs of large key corporations, a former key economic advisor
> to the Perot campaign, and many others.
> 
> Zack Sessions

Yeah, and Donald Trump appeared in front of the Senate a year ago to beg
for higher tax rates and a restoration of the old tax exemptions, too;
he's paying LOTS more in taxes now that he used to! 

The only CEO's lined up with Clinton/Gore are in the electronics &
computer fields; they support Gore's proposals for NREN. (As do I; it's
the one smart thing the man ever said.) I'm sure that they expect that the
extra federal expenditure on NREN will make up for the fact that Clinton's
other proposals will cost them dearly. 

Clinton's "tax fairness" appeal is to class hatred and jealousy, and you're
falling for it. You don't care how much the middle class gets hurt, just as
long as the "rich" get screwed too. I'm not rich; I'm nowhere even CLOSE.
But I'd like to be, some day, and Clinton's plan means that everybody will
be equal; equally impoverished. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politic