From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 04:15:32 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <21480@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <18j63pINNj8o@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>>You're claiming that the rich pay 200 x PER DOLLAR what poor people do??
>>The implication of this -- assuming that the rich pay 100%, which is too
>>high of course
>>-- is that the poor pay only half a cent on the dollar. Whatever
>>number is in the documentation by your leg, you aren't explaining it
>>correctly. What statistic are you taking about?

>I make $10,000.  I pay about $900 in FIT.  That's 9% as an overall rate.
>What if I make $6,000?  I pay about $300, or 5%.  Notice that the overall
>rate continues to fall.  But wait - I also get several hundred as a kickback
>for the "Earned Income Credit".  My tax rate (the "poor people keep paying
>more and more" lie) begins to fall well-below even 1%.  Check out the tables
>in the back of those 1040 instructions if you don't understand what I am
>getting at.

So your statistic about "income fairness" referred solely to the income
tax. Since we have a threshold for income tax, if we define "poor" as
poor enough, we can make the so-called tax fairness rate grow
arbitrarily large. This isn't all that illuminating. Any discussion of
tax burden should include at least FICA. But even your figures are quite
illuminating, because you go on to post:

>I make $150,000.  I pay about $50,000 in FIT.  My total "kickback" from
>the government will be about $5,000.  (Which, co-incidentally is the same
>as it would be if I were poor ...).  Notice that my overal tax-rate is
>quite a bit higher than <1%.  Much more like 30% or so.

PER DOLLAR EARNED -- and that's how you posted the statistic!!! --
you at $150K are paying only 6 times as much as the person with $6000,
who is not only "poor", but EXTREMELY poor. (The "Earned Income Credit"
applies only to parents last time I looked.
On $6000, you can't raise many children.....)
So your 200x statistic has SHRUNK TO 6. With the EIC, to 30, but you
didn't read the fine print on it.
There is no way in hell to get 200x PER DOLLAR EARNED unless you (1)
only consider income tax and (2) restrict "poor" to the very most
destitute people, not those classified as "in poverty" or even any
reasonable percentage of bottom-dwellers.

>The simple reality is that the majority of taxes are paid by a very small
>minority of citizens.  We paid about $30,000 last year in FIT.  How many
>"poverty class" households did we make up for?

This statistic, which may be te one you WANT to use, is about aggregate
payments, not payments PER DOLLAR EARNED. It needs to be placed in
context by examining how income was redistributed during the Reagan
years. My understanding is that it became skewed FASTER than taxes.
Certainly nothing you have posted disproves it. Suppose the
hypothetical (purely... just for the math)
         		"Rich"        "Poor"
Share of total income     50            5
Share of taxes            10            0.1

Now Reagan....
Share TI                  90            1
Share of taxes            20            0.1

It is far from clear that this has become fairer over time.

On the change in unemployment calculations, you wrote

>Since the military is voluntary and an employer, I'd say that the military
>should be included.  Why not?  Aren't civil service jobs included too?

The question is one of CONSISTENCY. The 10% figures bandied about when
Carter was actually in office become 7% when recalculated with the new
method. Most posters seem to use back-revised numbers.

>>Why don't you ask some of the older folks -- like 40 -- about 1968.

>I don't trust anyone over 40 ;-)

And they say the 60s left no legacy....... :-(

andy