orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/13/85)
Apparently supply-side advocates have difficulty understanding basic categories of government revenues and expenses. To wit Dave Olson responds to my figures: > > tim > Dave Olson > >I have posted this before so I will simply summarize the *facts* as > >presented in a New York Times article, Sept. 18,1984: > > > 1)Tax revenues have *not* gone up. Here are the facts: > > 1981 1982 > > $284.1 billion, $276.9 billion > > Uh, Tim. Revenues were *only* $200 and-some-odd billion? Double those > figures, and you will have the approximate figure for 1980. For last > year it was something like $750 billion. Point of fact: according to > the _Information_Please_Almanac_ of 1985, federal receipts for 1981 was > $663.9 billion and for 1982 was $690.4 billion. > > David Olson The 1981 tax cuts which were expected to produce the supply-side miracle of increased revenues from lower taxes only involved INCOME TAXES. The figures cited by the New York Times (quite properly!) are therefore for actual revenues from INCOME TAXES as tabulated by the Internal Revenue Service. Since these were the taxes which were reduced, this should be the category which increases in revenues according to supply-side theory. It was not. Along with the income tax cuts which benefited the affluent over other income groups, Social Security taxes were increased. If you examine the sources of the $690.4 billion in total revenues for 1982, I am sure you will find that Social Security revenues were the primary source of the increase. If you recall this, along with elimination of some Social Security programs, was one of the things recommended by the bipartisan commission on Social Security (and enacted with support from both parties in Congress) to insure the Social Security Trust Fund would remain solvent. It was a front page news story at the time. Do you remember it? Thus as logic would dictate those taxes which were decreased (namely income taxes) led to *reduced* revenues and those taxes which were increased (namely Social Security) led to *increased* revenues. Despite their posturing supply-side advocates have yet to produce something from nothing! Your incessant confusion of budget categories has still failed to produce such legerdemain. We can see your hands up your sleeves! tim sevener whuxn!orb
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (11/14/85)
Well, now. Let us examine one statement Mr. Sevener has made in this last article. He points out that Income Taxes were lowered and then decrys the fact that SS taxes increased. You are absolutely right Mr. Sevener. Yet, in making this statement, you infer that the SS increase was attributable to the Reagan administraton. Nice try, but it won't wash. I hold in my hand a pamphlet (HEW Publicaton No. [SSW] 79-10008) which outlines the SS tax increases one can expect from 1979 through 1990 as written into law in the year 1978. Now, if memory serves, a gentleman named Carter was in charge of our administration in 1978. Another gentleman from New England, a one Tip O'neil, was presiding over the House of Representatives. And in the Senate, guess who was the Pres-Pro-Tem? What this all leads to is that Mr. Sevener in his zeal to blame everything from zits to the failure of the acorn crop on the current administration, very nicely ignores the facts. Come on Sevener, gimme a break. How many other "facts" have you slipped through hoping to confuse those who are not too sure of what's going on? I think everyone who reads Mr. Sevener should take his facts with a grain of salt and understand that he is doing nothing more than trying to discredit the current administration in every way possible. Nothing can be as bad as Sevener makes it out to be. T. C. Wheeler
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (11/15/85)
> Come on Sevener, gimme a break. > How many other "facts" have you slipped through hoping > to confuse those who are not too sure of what's going on? > I think everyone who reads Mr. Sevener should take his > facts with a grain of salt and understand that he is > doing nothing more than trying to discredit the current > administration in every way possible. Nothing can be > as bad as Sevener makes it out to be. > T. C. Wheeler You're a fine one to talk, Wheeler. You're the one who falsely stated that the island of Vieques was unoccupied in 1912 in order to discredit the Puerto Rican independance movement (and me). Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! Nyeh! J. D. Myers
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (11/18/85)
Sorry, Meyers, I have never tried to discredit the PR independence movement. Point in fact, I would rather see the island either as an independent nation or a full fledged state. On the other hand, you had better go back to the books on Vieques. T. C. Wheeler