From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:14:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>	There are many democrats, including Clinton, who support a capitol
>>gains cut for long term capital gains only. There have been several plans,
>>from a single step at 3 years, to a sliding scale for capitol gains earned
>>between 1 and 5 years. The idea is to tax the hell out of short term gains,
>>while rewarding long term investment with little or no taxation. 
>
>	But the property is yours, not the government's.  I do not see why
>short-term gains should be taxed more heavily than long-term gains.

Short-term gains tend to be made with actions that do not help the economy
in general (stock options, futures, short selling).  Long-term gains tend
to be more beneficial to the economy (investing in a small startup company
and helping it grow to be a Wal-Mart).

>                                                                    I guess
>it's so young folks like me can't rise to the level of those people, like
>the Clintons, who did very well for themselves in the "decade of greed."

  Wasn't the Clintons' net worth in the low 6 figures?  And they're in
their mid 40's.  I would call that doing OK, not "very well".  The Bush's
are doing "very well".

>>	I don't think that Clinton is going to raise taxes. For most people,
>>the health insurance tax is a non-issue, because they already pay more 
>>then 7% for medical care anyway, either directly (like me), or indirectly,
>>as a salery perk. Under the current system, if you pay your own health
>>insurance, you can only deduct premiums over 7% of your gross anyway: the 
>>first 7% is fully taxed.
>
>The difference between the conservative and liberal is manifested in the 
>above paragraph:  the conservative asks, "But why should the Government
>assume this responsibilty?"  The liberal replies, "Why not?"

  Many companies use health-care plans as handcuffs.  If a worker develops
some condition that makes him a health risk, he will find it difficult
to change companies if opportunity arises.  Companies now give medical
exams before you start, and pre-existing conditions either receive
limited benefits or are not paid at all.  So many opportunities are lost.

  Also, jobs are created by small companies.  But small companies are
risky.  You could go into the tank, and there is no health insurance
safety net if you do.  This goes for people who work for you, too.
Large companies have an advantage when it comes to health care
plans.  They get volume discounts, so it costs them less per worker
than small companies.  And you as an individual have to pay even more.

  Conservatives talk about a level playing field.  I believe a national
health care system would help level the field.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"