orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/01/84)
> This is buying into the Mondale line. HE invented "Reagan's (whatever > tax)", and it's nothing but a bogus campaign ploy. What about Mr. Mondale's > taxes? Won't they reduce your purchasing power? He makes no bones about it > - if he's elected, those taxes WILL HAPPEN, with the energetic support of T. > P. O'Neill & Co. I don't need that, and neither do you. > Ray Simard If you would like to make a bet on it Ray, I will be willing to eat my hat if Reagan doesn't increase taxes if he is re-elected. What about it? Willing to put your hat in your mouth if Ronnie lets you down? Moreover, whatever type of taxes Reagan proposes you can be sure they will follow the lines of his last tax cuts which favored the rich over the poor. Apparently in the TV age you CAN fool enough of the people enough of the time to get elected. Tim Sevener whuxl!orb
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/07/84)
In article <320@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >If you would like to make a bet on it Ray, I will be willing to eat my hat >if Reagan doesn't increase taxes if he is re-elected. What about it? >Willing to put your hat in your mouth if Ronnie lets you down? >Moreover, whatever type of taxes Reagan proposes you can be sure they will >follow the lines of his last tax cuts which favored the rich over the poor. >Tim Sevener whuxl!orb Well, Tim, I unfortunately don't own a hat, so it may be a bit difficult to ante up :-). Actually, I am not at all positive that taxes won't increase under a Reagan term. I recall that Ronnie got suckered into the TEFRA, and he may get another similar snow job. Nevertheless, I do know one thing: Reagan will go to taxes LAST, after exhausting his other options. If Mondale is elected (by the time you read this, the election will be over) he has *explicitly* pledged to get tax increases FIRST. That's the difference. Please, oh please, do me and many others a favor, and substantiate your echoing of the "tax cuts favor the rich" litany. I would genuinely like to see your arguments supporting that so-often-repeated premise. Especially, I'd like you to address the following: 1. Do you think a fair tax cut should deal in absolute dollar amounts or in terms of a percentage of the original taxes that are being cut? Should that same basis be used to establish what a fair tax rate is in the first place? 2. Accepting the fact that those who were paying the most BEFORE the cuts got the biggest break, please justify the claim that those people are now undertaxed. 3. Tax rates are still thoroughly progressive. Please tell me why you think that a 50% marginal rate is too low. 4. Please explain why, now that the $50,000-and-up sector is paying MORE DOLLARS and a LARGER SHARE of the total income tax revenue (from 32.9% to 35.4%, while $20,000-and-down paid 15.5%, down from 17.1%) AFTER the cuts, we should abandon the cuts. 5. Please substantiate the claim that taxing the rich, even without loopholes, would make a dent on the deficit. (How many really rich are there, and how much could be taxed at ANY marginal rate). Also show what effect raising corporate taxes would have on the costs of the products they manufacture and sell, and on their business practices, and they benefit or hurt the consumer. 6. Please justify bracket creep, by which the government gets a progressive RATE increase with inflation, without the legitimacy of legislating politically unpopular tax hikes. Mondale has campaigned for the repeal of indexing, whose ONLY purpose is to insulate all taxpayers from bracket creep, and remove the benefit to the government of encouraging inflation. Awaiting your reply, -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard