dave@teldata.UUCP (Dave Heppner) (03/29/84)
In this country of ours it is now to a point that if you work (or try to work) for a living the government takes away most of what you make and gives it to someone that isn't working and does not want to work. I have heard it said that about 49% of the people are supporting 51%. I for one had to work for everything I have I do not feel that I should HAVE to give it to someone who feels that we owe it to him/her. I do believe that we need to help those who cannot help themselves, but this has to be done at the local level because government wastes most of what it gets on it self. If you get something free it is not as dear to you as would be if you had to pay for it with your time. Be responsible for your own actions and only worry about the other guy when he violates your rights or when he needs your help. Dave.
notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/01/84)
#R:teldata:-27900:iuvax:2000012:000:1719 iuvax!scsg Mar 31 18:48:00 1984 Well, it is true that most of your hard-earned tax dollars get given away to the undeserving, but those undeserving are not primarily the poor. In the first place 60% of federal income taxes go to the military to prepare for War. This does not benefit the ordinary worker because military expenditures tend to be capital intensive and studies have shown that they employ less people than just about any other comparable gov't expenditure. For most states, money spent for War preparations lose the State more money than it ever gains in terms of either jobs or spending within the State. Enormous sums also go for "tax expenditures". These are the tax deductions which allow the wealthy to avoid paying taxes--under Reagan these have increased enormously and mean that the middle-income taxpayer is forced to pay the taxes the wealthy should have paid but didn't. A symptom of the incredible unfairness of the Reagan tax changes is this fact reported in US News and World Report: the number of millionaires paying NO TAXES increased from 5 to 117 last tax year after Reagan's tax changes. Under Reagan what is happening is the transfer of income, not from the middle-class to the poor but from the middle-class to the rich. US News and World Report also reported in the same issue that the number of Americans making between 15-35,000 dollars has gone down by 15% in the last few years. Two different studies of the distribution of income both showed that income has been shifted from the middle and lower classes to the rich by several percentage points in the last few years. The best way to reduce our taxes is to make the rich pay theirs!! tim sevener Indiana University, Bloomington pur-ee!iuvax!scsg
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/02/84)
][ Sorry, your figure of 60% for the military is incorrect. If you would care to check the figures, I think you will find it somewhat less than 26%. Giveaway programs run over 30%.
rcd@opus.UUCP (04/03/84)
<>
Well, maybe we are spending enormous amounts on the "defense" (sic; read
"military") budget, but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. I got mah copy
of the U.S. Constitution right here beside me, and it says quite clearly:
...Congress shall have power to...provide for the common defence
and general welfare... (Art. I, Sec. 8)
------- ------- (my emphasis)
Clearly, they're engaged in providing welfare for General Electric, General
Dynamics, ...
--
Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcdholt@parsec.UUCP (04/04/84)
#R:teldata:-27900:parsec:40500025:000:571
parsec!holt Apr 3 13:15:00 1984
"In the first place 60% of federal income taxes go to the
military to prepare for War."
tim sevener
Where in the world did you come up with this figure? No breakdown of the
budget that I have seen shows anything near this impossibly high
percentage. For one thing roughly 25% of the budget is used to pay interest
on the budget deficit. If we believed your 60% figure, then only 15% of
the budget went to social programs and all the other programs of the federal
government.
Dave Holt
Convex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holttac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon) (04/06/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!
Imprimus, that is the preamble, not the Constitution itself.
Secundus, the *EXACT* quote is:
"...provide for the common defence,
promote the general welfare..."
This section of the preamble (while carrying NO weight of law) has been
used to foist upon us the "general welfare" by a supreme court decision
some years back which has sucked many a taxpayer dry. There is nothing
in the Constitution which grants the power to the government to take money
from one person and give it to another. It is one of the powers which
WE, THE PEOPLE have given away through the negligence of not denying to
our government a power which they do not have!
Lord deliver us from Philistines who misquote our sacred documents with
the purport of giving us truth!
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP (04/13/84)
#R:teldata:-27900:uiuccsb:11000096:000:808 uiuccsb!grunwald Apr 13 10:36:00 1984 No, the poor are not paying less tax -- they are in fact paying more. If one looks at the services that they get, one will find that the reductions in services far exceeds the tax cuts that have gotten. Thus, their income as a whole has gone down, due to the "reductions" in taxes. Ergo, they are in fact paying more, although the dollor amount that they fork out in taxes may well be less. The hardest hit are the middle class, with the lower-class following in quick pursuit. Also, before advocating a flat tax, think about the theory of marginal utility -- 10% of 10,000 income means MUCH more to me that 10% of 100,000 income as far as my freedom to do things (i.e. eat, see a doctor, etc). That's where the "flat tax" becomes a farce -- the poor wind up paying much more in "subjective expense."
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/17/84)
#R:teldata:-27900:uiucdcs:29200131:000:1818 uiucdcs!renner Apr 16 17:31:00 1984 /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / uiuccsb!grunwald / 10:36 am Apr 13, 1984 ****/ > No, the poor are not paying less tax -- they are in fact paying more. > If one looks at the services that they get, one will find that the > reductions in services far exceeds the tax cuts that have gotten. Thus, > their income as a whole has gone down, due to the "reductions" in > taxes. Ergo, they are in fact paying more, although the dollor amount > that they fork out in taxes may well be less. I reject this analysis of income taxes. It is legitimate to view a part of taxes as fees for services -- such as police protection -- and it is generally true that in these areas the poor do not get the services they pay for. But the vast majority of the "reductions in services" mentioned above are cuts in the rate of growth of government handout programs. To view welfare programs as a "service" that the poor are somehow "paying for" is ludicrous. To view cuts in these programs as an increase in the tax burden of the poor is unjustified. > Also, before advocating a flat tax, think about the theory of marginal > utility -- 10% of 10,000 income means MUCH more to me that 10% of > 100,000 income as far as my freedom to do things (i.e. eat, see a > doctor, etc). That's where the "flat tax" becomes a farce -- the poor > wind up paying much more in "subjective expense." I advocate a flat tax scheme. In my scheme the personal exemption is rather large and is designed to exempt *all* income up to the official poverty level for each household. That is, if the cash income poverty level for a family of 4 is $12,000, then the personal exemption would be $3,000. With this system, the poor pay *no* tax; others pay tax equally to the extent that they are not poor. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
mwm@ea.UUCP (04/17/84)
#R:teldata:-27900:ea:10100025:000:2198 ea!mwm Apr 17 14:27:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / uiuccsb!grunwald / 10:36 am Apr 13, 1984 */ > No, the poor are not paying less tax -- they are in fact paying more. If one > looks at the services that they get, one will find that the reductions in > services far exceeds the tax cuts that have gotten. Thus, their income as > a whole has gone down, due to the "reductions" in taxes. Ergo, they are > in fact paying more, although the dollor amount that they fork out in > taxes may well be less. That just doesn't cut it. If you aren't paying any taxes, you can't be "paying more" than you were before. Unless you think that the welfare program is a negative tax instead of the handout that it is. If you want to talk taxes, talk taxes. If you want to talk total income, then talk total income. NIT (Negative Income Tax) is what you seem to be proposing, and that has a whole set of problems of it's own. > The hardest hit are the middle class, with the lower-class following in > quick pursuit. This doesn't go with your previous statement, that it was services that got cut, amounting in a total tax increase. Since the middle class receives nearly zip in services, what got cut? I don't know if the what the tax cut looked like to those people, since I wasn't middle class then. Can you give references that back up both this and your previous statement. > Also, before advocating a flat tax, think about the theory of marginal > utility -- 10% of 10,000 income means MUCH more to me that 10% of 100,000 > income as far as my freedom to do things (i.e. eat, see a doctor, etc). That's > where the "flat tax" becomes a farce -- the poor wind up paying much more > in "subjective expense." So? They lose more of their disposable income. Why should those with more pay because other have less? Admittedly, a flat tax isn't the best thing in the world, but it's *got* to be better than what we have now. Actually, I agree with you, in that people shouldn't be taxed on what it takes them to live, and would like to see a national income tax - with "necessities" exempt. Of course, those who insist on stealing from those who have (who else can you steal from?) won't like that, either. <mike