From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary for Tuesday,
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: Re: Summary for Tuesday, Aug. 4, 1992
  .Message-ID: <BsMnGo.MFv@solbourne.com>
  .Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 19:00:24 GMT

kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:


WK.While reading article <1992Aug7.011404.5680@seq.uncwil.edu>, I noticed that
  .session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) said the following:
  . >You apparently haven't read Clinton's economic plan. He isn't talking about
  . >any "luxury tax". He is talking about returning the tax bracket of the weal
  . >back to where it used to be, before Reagan and Bush lowered it in a failed
  . >attempt at "trickle down economics". The tax bracket, if I remember correct
  . >was not 70%, but was around 50%.

Yes, and tax us into prosperity!  The only way to deal with a big gov't
and their spending habits is to reduce the expenses, not increase the
take from our pockets!  Reagan lowered the tax bracket significantly,
which all the Democrats hollered would simply make it easier on the
rich.  That actually resulted in a 4 times increase in revenues.  That
fact is quickly forgotten.

WK.Which will raise a relatively insignificant amount of money for the governmen
  .and will also result in a disincentive to work hard and make money.  Why shou
  .I work harder to make myself (and my company) successful if the government is
  .just going to take more of that money away?  Money that really does result in
  .a "trickle down" effect because it still gets spent and injected back into th
  .economy?

WK. >So, are you saying that the rich shouldn't have to pay their fair share cuz
  . >if they did the middle class would suffer? Mind explaining that one to me?

WK.Sure.  Ignoring for the moment the fact that "fair share" has always seemed t
  .me to indicate "flat tax rate," the obvious answer is looking upon the result
  .of the luxury tax.  As was said already, the luxury tax resulted in the
  .wealthy purchasing yachts off-shore and the domestic yacht-building business,
  .consisting for the most part of blue-collar middle class employees, to lose
  .their jobs.

It's when the rich buy yachts that blue collar workers get jobs,
making the yachts and all of the accessories and services that go along
with them.  What is it that so many have against the wealthy?  A General
Motors plant that employs thousands of people does not get started by
the poor!  70% of the employed work for small businesses, people with
enough extra cash of the assets to get the loans and take the risk of
opening up a new business.  You tax them into oblivion and you really
eliminate jobs. It seems obvious to me that the only problem people have
with the rich, is that they aren't the ones that are rich!   And as you
said above, you really won't fix anything anyway.  The rich will simply
find another source and spend their money in a place that benefits us
even less.

WK. >Increasing the income tax bracket on the wealthiest is not going to prevent
  . >any of them from realizing "the American Dream", in fact, merely because
  . >they ARE the wealthiest, they ALREADY ARE realizing the American Dream! The
  . >catch phrase that Clinton wants to "punish acheivement" is pure GOP
  . >conservative rhetoric.

No.  When you take away the incentives, the opportunity, or increase the
risk of investing in ventures that generate money and jobs, you will
find those wealthy will take their money elsewhere.  You CANNOT tax
yourselves into prosperity!

WK.OK, explain how it isn't punishment for achievement.  I've never understood
  .this.  "Congratulations!! You've worked your butt off to make your business
  .successful, so now we're going to take away half your income, not to mention
  .whatever you'll have to pay your state!"  The point is, not only does it
  .punish those that have made it, it really does remove incentives for anyone
  .new to attempt to make it.

Right.  What's worse, is that you won't even bother to work your butt
off because the risk of failure is greater with the gov't tax on small
businesses, and their incessant demand for compliance with contradictory
laws that take impossible amounts of time and know-how to fulfill...
blah, blah, and you will never start the small business in the first
place anymore!

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . How do I set my laser printer to "stun"?
          
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh