From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:53:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <Bw4zo1.5t3@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>In <Bw4Jqt.F6J@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>    That point I am trying to make is this: the official Republican
>>    party line has always been that raising taxes takes away incentives
>>    to work, and does not raise revenues.  This is patently false, and 
>>    they know it: it all depends on what we tax (i.e. they'd rather tax 
>>    our paychecks).
>
>>    I'd rather see goverment spending go down, and my taxes along
>>    with it, but if we can't cut spending, the next best thing is to make
>>    the rich pay their fair share of taxes, by taxing their assets.
>
>	The rich do pay their fair share. The top 10% of income earners
>(thats $80000+/yr) pay 53% of the taxes. 

    No, what they paid was 53% of the federal income taxes - ~$500B (this and
    below are ball-park numbers taken from the latest Satistical Abstract of the
    US.  Unfortunately, I do not have a copy in front of me), less than half of 
    all tax receipts, and about a third of what fed.gov. spends

    Another ~$400B came from "Social Insurance" taxes - guess why pay those.

    ~100B  - from taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, etc.

>                                            What more do you want? 

    Ideally, I would like us to have a single flat tax on one's new worth.
    As a practical matter, I would like the burden of "Social Insurance" taxes
    to be spread across the entire wealth spectrum, instead of having 
    the middle-class to shoulder most of the burden.

>                                                                    When you
>raise taxes on the rich, you stiffle the economy.

    and when you cut taxes on the rich, you stimulate the economy, right?

    A couple of years ago, when Senator M. proposed to reduce the SS/payroll
    tax, several prominent Republicans, both politicians and economists (Martin 
    Feldstein(sp?) was one of them) went on TV and, keeping a straight face, 
    told the public that, though they loved the idea dearly, the proposed tax 
    cut would increase the budget deficit and hurt the economy.

    Gee, I thought, cutting my taxes would reduce the revenue, increase
    the deficit, and damage the economy, while cutting Mr.Feldstein's taxes
    would do exactly the opposite.

    Here's the "trickle-down" theory in a nutshell: in order to stimulate the 
    economy, we need to either raise my taxes, or cut Mr. Feldstein's taxes, 
    or (preferrably) both.  I do not know about you, but I've had it.

>
>>    Nor do the rich pay 31%, it is more like 24% (current AMT rate).
>
>	Where did you come by this figure?

    As a part of the "deficit reduction package" negotiated two years ago,
    the Alternative Minimum Tax was raised from 21% to 24%.  Don't you
    worry, though: one needs to be making well over $100,000 to be hit
    with AMT.  Poor Ross Perot did not make it, he only had $30,000 in
    taxable income.  Considering that the man has five children and 
    a wife who does not work, is he now eligible to receive foodstamps?

>
>>    Those are, of course, ballpark numbers.  My point is that under the 
>>    current tax code, middle-income wage earners are subject to higher 
>>    tax rates than the rich folks.  
>
>	"rich folks" pay the same (or higher depending on the time period
>in question) federal income tax rate as middle-income wage earners. If
>you have proof to the contrary, please post it.

    You are comparing apples and oranges: 80+% of all taxpayers pay more in 
    SS taxes than they pay in federal income tax, and that figure does not 
    even include the payroll tax that their employers have to pay.

    Using your own numbers: the bottom 90% of the population pays $250B 
    in income taxes, and close to $400B in "Social Insurance" taxes.  But, 
    hey, don't we have the lowest income tax rates in the world because
    of that?

   




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:9781 talk.politics.misc:50983