From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Trade Imbalance
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:54:56 GMT

In article <BtBF75.6E0@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Rob Butera) writes:
>In article <49#n_-+.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>|> In article <BtAx7t.KyF@rice.edu> rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) writes:
>|> >In article <53#n-hh.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>|> >>The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income taxes collected
>|> >>in 1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the income taxes. Furthermore
>|> >>they had an increase of 17.9% in dollars paid. The total tax base increased
>|> >>while inflation and interest rates decreased under this pro-growth taxation
>|> >>policy. The assertion that the rich got an unfair tax break by shifting the load
>|> >>from them to the poor is simply unsupported by fact. These figures came from
>|> >>the Wall Street Journal 8/5/92
>|> >>
>|> >
>|> >This quote omits one relevant statistic: we see how the richest 5% are
>|> >paying a greater share of the naitions taxes, and that the $$$ that
>|> >they paid increased by 17.9%.  BUT ... what was the income of the
>|> >richest 5% in 1980 vs. 1990.  Without this as a reference, all of the
>|> >above is irrelevant.  Unless that "richest 5%" is not richest 5% of
>|> >the people but those who's income/assets add up to the top 5% ...
>|> >
>|> >
>|> 
>|> While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I will disagree
>|> with your conclusion: I don't understand why it is somehow wrong for
>|> people to work and increase their income. I have only stated that the
>|> assertion that the rich got an undeserved tax break is unsupported by 
>|> fact. 
>|> 
>
>WTF?  I really didn't have a conclusion!  My point was this:  we see that
>the amount that they paid in taxes increased was 17.9%  We do not see how
>much their income has increased.  Without such information, it may be the case
>that their income doubled while their taxes only went up 17.9%.  I'm NOT
>advocating what you would likely call "liberal propaganda" like wealth is
>evil and all that.  Everyone is entitled to make a living, and to make as 
>much as they want if they are successful.  I'm simply pointing out that
>the above statistics do not tell us if the taxes paid as a % of their income
>went up or down, and what percent that is.  IMHO, that IS a relevant thing
>to know in such a debate.  IN NO WAY did I state, advocate, or imply that
>it is wrong to work and increase one's income.  Unfortunately, some people
>of both liberal and conservative persuasions get so caught up looking for
>certain kinds of buzzwords and questions that instantly have a kneejerk
>answer, like yours.
>
>-- 
>Rob Butera - ECE grad student   Rice University, Houston, TX   rbutera@rice.edu
>
>"Boredom is a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half the sins of
> mankind are caused by the fear of it."  - Bertrand Russell (1930)

Rob, you are also forgetting to ask what measure of dollars are being used.
Since dollars in 1980 are worth more than the dollars of 1990, the increase
in total dollars spent, in this instance 17.9%, would be significantly
reduced.

David L. Leon
dleon@seas.smu.edu

Newsgroups: tx.politics