From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Tax Fairness
Date: 12 Aug 92 09:18:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh

  .Subject: Tax Fairness
  .Message-ID: <19920807141937ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
  .Date: 7 Aug 92 21:20:38 GMT

ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:


JN.In article <1992Aug7.011257.5541@seq.uncwil.edu>, on 7 Aug 1992 01:12:57 GMT,
  .session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

JN.>
  .>Regarding rich people's "fair share", the tax brackets were defined a long
  .>time ago. They have been rising across the board ever since then. However,
  .>during the Reagan administration, the bracket for the top 2% of wage earners
  .>was lowered disproportiantely from the rest of the brackets in a hope
  .>that their new found wealth would "trickle down" to the rest of us.That
  .>policy, unforntuinately did not work.

On what basis do you make this statement?  In fact, the tax revenues
increased four fold with the decrease in those tax brackets.

  Clinton just wants to put the tax
  .>bracket back where it used to be. And it isn't as if all of these
  .>rich people are going to become paupers due to this tiny tax increase, they
  .>most certainly will not. And they ARE the single groups who can afford
  .>such a tax increase.

No. What's really happening here is that the Democrats, Clinton, are
pandering to the cry of the blue collar people who simply want the
wealth they don't have - so let's take it away from those who do!
Because you cannot tax yourselves into prosperity!  I keep saying that
over and over because it is so absurd that people will really believe a
Clinton who wants to take more money from our pockets so that we will
all have more to spend??!!  I thought the slick snake oil salesman was
outlawed!  hehehehehehe

  .>
  .Tax fairness is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. Why should it
  .be considered fair for one person to pay $20,000 in taxes and another
  .person to pay $200? Does the former get 100 times as many votes as the
  .latter?

But, what did the individual who only pays $200 do to reduce his tax
liability?  Be careful of apples and oranges here.  He had to spend that
money in special ways to make that happen.  Those investment generate
more taxes and more jobs, etc. etc. than the mere loss of taxes from the
original individual.  Why is that such a difficult concept to
understand?  Poor people don't generate jobs!

JN.It stands to reason  that if tax rates are cut uniformly, that the
  .person paying more money beforehand is going to get a larger saving.
  .There's nothing the least bit sinister about any of this.

JN.As to this trickle-down stuff, the most egregious examples of trickle-
  .down are the wayy the supposedly beneficial results of governmental
  .programs trickle down to the taxpayers who fund them.

Anything the gov't does, private industry can do for a fifth of the
cost.


Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . A closed mouth gathers no feet.
                                                     
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh