dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (03/28/86)
[] > Earlier I promised to show the effects of Reagan's policies > on actual taxes of Americans in different income groups. > Here are some facts to ponder: > (From Thomas Edsall's "The New Politics of Inequality",p. 205) > [interesting stats] > In other words, unless you were making over $75,000, any tax > reductions from the 1981 tax cuts were wiped out by inflation > and regressive Social Security tax increases. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Finally, someone on the "political left" admits that SS is a regressive tax! Yeah! Besides, as I recall from several months ago when I supplied evidence about an increase in revenue, you had tried to dismiss it out of hand by claiming that a lot of that was SS which, supposedly, does not count. Why does it count now? > As one enters > the truly wealthy income group then taxes were *enormously* > decreased. I would expect that the great preponderance of people > on the net are in the middle income groups which actually saw > their taxes increased under Reagan. > How the middle class was bewitched into thinking it was > benefitting substantially from Reagan's tax cuts for the rich > is one of the marvels of modern politics. Tim, assuming the figures are correct (and I tend to have my doubts that they were taken in context, considering the title), my question is, so what? Am I correct in assuming that you and Edsall are presenting this in an attempt to incite some kind of resentment in us toward rich people? As for me, I really can't do that. See, I am not an "affluphobe" -- I don't hate or fear affluence. I don't see anything particularily sacrosanct about being poor, nor despicable about being rich, nor noble about disparaging rich people in the guise of helping poor people. Indeed, I think we of the middle class are beingtaxed too much. But, I do not see how that situation improves by merely taxing rich people more. It is like, if someone burglarized my home, he is not doing me any favors by ripping off someone richer down the street afterward. To me, these are the issues: 1. Morality. I do not see anything moral about taking progressively more from those who have more no matter how badly it is needed. 2. Even if it were moral, there isn't enough there to do much. As I pointed out in an earlier article, if you took *all* the wealth from those who made over $75K per year, it could finance the federal government for about 7.2 days. Then what? 3. Even if it did go to finance the federal govt, what makes you think the savings would be passed onto the rest of us? History has shown that when government gets more, it simply spends more. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere