From: jcj6@ace3.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Subject: taxes
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:00:08 GMT

>>70 billion,  This means that if Clinton can get the congress to go along
>>and roll the tax rates on the wealthy back to 1977 rates he will have a 
>>surplus of 14 billion.  Now if he can get congress to go along may be 
>>another story.  

>This assumes that raising the tax rates (which is different from rolling
>them back - ask the Proposition 13 people which direction their tax
>rollback went ...) is going to actually result in increased tax revenues.
>The evidence is that it won't.

It is a simple fact that based on the tax rates of 1977, adjusted for 
inflation, the richest 1% of the population would pay an additional
84 Billion dollars in 1992.  The next 4% will pay 7 Billion less.
Excluding the bottom 20%, the rest of us will be paying an additional
16 Billion.  These changes were sold to us as a way of INCREASING the
tax revenues, how ridiculous.  In the last 12 yr congress and the 
administration has raised taxes on three of every four families and
managed to collect 76 Billion less in federal taxes.     
So what is the great middle class really getting for this increased
tax rate: "Since 1980 on three areas of government spending have seen 
increases (excluding Social Security): Defense, the S&L fiasco, and the
INTEREST on the national debt.  Spending on everything else fell from
9.9% of the GNP in 1980 to 7.4% a drop of 130Billion in 1990 dollars.
Federal spending on justice and general goverment operations down by
42%, Education and training down by 40%, The environment and natural
resources down by 39%, roads and transportation down by 32%, welfare
and unemployment down by 21%.  

Sounds to me like we are getting the royal shaft.  

>With higher tax rates, people may stop making certain risky investments
>because the return less taxes isn't enough to make the investment pay off.
>A good example is oil exploration - with the odds of a well coming in
>being pretty awful, the last thing you need is a 50 to 70 percent
>incremental tax bracket on top of that 80 to 90 percent rate of failure.

Once again the simple idea behind the changes in the tax law and the 
"trickle down effect" was to increase investments in American companies
and therefor help and thus trickle down to the American workers.  The
true fact is that this has not occured.  In fact none of this has occured.

It is well past time to realize that the great experiment of the 1980's is
a complete failure.  It is little wonder that 90% of the American public 
realize that the contry is heading in the wrong direction.  Whether Gov.
Clinton can change things or not is open to debate.  The question as to
whether Pr. Bush could do it is open to much less.  The ridiculous claim
that all needs to be done is to give Bush a Repulican congress and all
would be right is exactly that.  The damn congress we have gave Reagan
everything he wanted in the way of taxes.  And now look at us.  "By 1989 
the top 1% ended up with a greater total net worth than everyone in the
bottom 90%."  That is not only ridiculous it is dangerous!





James L. Berry  jcj6@giedi.sps.not.com                 
"Sex education in our schools is promoting incest" 
		      The Rev? Jimmy Swaggart