From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: taxes
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:34:10 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep29.185744.11960@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>Being posted in this news group hardly constitutes a reliable source.

No, you misunderstand.  They were from an article that used CENSUS
BUREAU figures as the source of the article.  I posted the table from
the article to this newsgroup.  You are now free to post what you think
were the real changes in distribution between those income groups.

>But of course your correct that percentages don't give you overall
>numbers.  This is true if the overall workforce numbers were to change
>dramatically.  Even if true though it changes nothing.  The bottom
>80% of the American public has suffered under the Washington tax changes
>of the last 15years.  You can hardly call any Economic policy successfull
>when only 20% of the population has benifited.  And in fact you need to
>reach the top 5% before you see any real increase in earnings.  Recall the
>top 1% +115%, the next 4% +23%, the next 5% +11%, and the next 10% +9%.
>Now you are down to a little below your 50K number.  This is a fundamental
>difference in our beliefs if you indeed feel that helping only the top 20% 
>of the population translates to a successful program.  So fundamental in
>fact there is no longer a need for us to discuss it.  It is obvious you
>will not change your mind and I am equally convinced that I am correct.  

If more people moved into wealthier brackes, and the Census Bureau numbers
I posted bear that out, then the program was a success.  There will always
be people who aren't willing to work harder to increase their wealth.  It
isn't the Reagan or Bush administrations' fault if these people are out
there.  That the percentage of the population earning less than $15K in '89
dollars declined from ~20% to ~18% indicates that Reagan's policies were a
success.  You only seem to be pissed off that some people who make a lot of
money made a lot more money.  Tough.  Are you upset that Bill Cosby and
Michael Jackson make millions each year?

>   A good bit of drivel deleated for space reasons, all of which was
>   based on PERSONAL opinions.

If you'd pay attention to the stock market, quite a bit of what I wrote is
in agreement with quite a few other investors.  There was one medical
companies stock that has dropped about 60% on fears that Bill Clinton is
going to socialize medicine in this country.  Many other companies have
been taking similar nose-dives for the other reasons.  I plan on buying
index puts in a few weeks.  Should be real interesting ...

>Nor do I, about as much as I do yours:-) and obviously the feeling is
>mutual!!  He simply hosted the show.  I don't recall the names of the 
>guests.  But the numbers used were from the same source that I have 
>quoted.

The problem with your analysis, and that of others with your same agenda,
is that your analysis is based on "equality of outcome."  That is, if the
rich man made 100% more money, the poor man should have too.  If such a
situation were somehow forced to occur, the poor would have no incentive
to work.  Just lay back and reap the rewards of government spending.

My analysis looks at peoples ability to move through the different economic
classes, not at how much money someone was given through wealth
redistribution schemes.  If Sam Walton made $2B last year, that's great, as
long as it doesn't prevent me from making my living.  Your problem is you
don't want businessmen like Sam Walton making a ton of money until you've
figured out how to make your ton of money first.  Perhaps if you stopped
being jealous of how much Sam, Bill, and Michael make, you'd figure out how
to make it on your own.
-- 
John F. Haugh II           [  TSAKC  ]       UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151    [ DoF #17 ]            Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org