notes@iuvax.UUCP (04/09/84)
#N:iuvax:2000018:000:1593 iuvax!scsg Apr 8 10:18:00 1984 The Congressional Budget Office just completed a study based upon the actual effects of Reagan's economic program. The figures demonstrate that Reagan's program has indeed given to the rich at the expense of the poor. Moreover the Federal Government lost far more money from tax cuts benefitting primarily the rich($93.6 billion), than it saved from all changes in benefit programs( $23.1 billion ) Is it any wonder Reagan is leading us into bankruptcy? Here is how this Robin Hood program for the rich stacks up: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Income <$10K $10-20K $20-40K $40-80K >$80K ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Tax cuts $ 20 $ 330 $1200 $3080 $8390 lost benefits -250 -210 -130 -90 -90 (cash) lost benefits -160 - 90 - 60 -80 -40 (noncash) ------------------------------------------------------------------- NET GAIN,LOSS $-390 $30 $1010 $2900 $8270 Is this fair? It is futile to shift the blame to Congress on this issue. Reagan wholly supported this "soak the poor" scheme--the fact that he and wealthy lobbyists twisted enough arms of conservative Democrats to pass this scheme is hardly an absolution of responsibility. I deplore the fact that some conservative Democrats voted for such a blatantly unfair program--they should not be re-elected. But Reagan proposed it and fought for it tooth and nail. tim sevener Indiana University, Bloomington pur-ee!iuvax!scsg
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/09/84)
[] The Congressional Budget Office. A fine, upstanding, impartial source of information. Oh balderdash! When are some of the people on this net going to take their blinders off. Who do you think appoints the people to the CBA? If you want to check, you will find that the all of the top personnel in that Office were former Democratic Campaign workers, contributors, and lackeys. The credibility of that Office was debunked years ago. Pay attention now. Read my lips. READ SOMETHING BESIDES DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN LITERATURE!!! Even the mighty N. Y. Times does not beleive what comes out of the CBA. I do not happen to subscribe to every Reagan policy either, but I sure as hell don't think that any of the other three jabones have anything to offer. If you think taxing the rich is going to solve all of the problems then you need a quick course in economics and taxation. Further, who do you classify as "the rich"? A person today making from 50 to 70K is still not considered rich by the standards of just 10 years ago. These people are still the middle class. Even if you raised the tax rate to 90% for all those making over 75K a year, you would not raise enough through taxes to keep Social Welfare spending going for more than a month. The greatest majority of taxpayers fall in the 25 to 75K range. They pay 90% of all taxes collected. Someone said that the government should take away the savings that the rich have socked away. Do that and the housing industry would collapse, credit intrest would rise to over 40%, and the stock market would collapse. The money socked away in savings is the basis for loans to do almost everything. Just look back to the recent recession. Savings dropped off at nearly every level, housing starts hit an alltime low, interest rates skyrocketed, and a dozen other things happened due to the low savings fallout. According to Tim's CBO article, the rich person saved over 8K as a result of the tax cuts. Well, isn't it interesting that soon after the tax cuts went into effect, housing started to pick up. I wonder why? It's because the guys with the 8K to spare sunk the money into savings, thus making more money available to finance construction and mortgages. With more money available, the interest costs started down and more people could afford to buy houses. With more people buying houses, the construction industry heated up, ect., etc.. If you want to believe that taxing the rich is the answer to all of the economic problems, then I think you are living in a fantasy world. If it weren't for some people being able to have extra money to invest, there would be no use to float capitol improvement bonds at the municipal level and your fire department might just be operating with garden hoses. If it weren't for those people with extra cash, there would be no venture capitol available to expand or start the companies who hire people. Sure, tax the hell out of the rich. If you want to see bad times, you just do that. We will all be out for the dole. There is a cause and effect relationship to taxes. And for those who do not see the relationships, there are some hard times ahead. I don't like taxes any more than the next person, but to tax one class of people out of existence is stupid. Remember, there is a "rich" class in the Soviet Union too. The powers that be over there are not so stupid to eliminate the rich and cut their own throats. Finally, take what the CBO has to say with a grain of salt. T. C. Wheeler
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (04/09/84)
>> Here is how this Robin Hood program for the rich stacks up: >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Income <$10K $10-20K $20-40K $40-80K >$80K >> ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- >> Tax cuts $ 20 $ 330 $1200 $3080 $8390 >> lost benefits -250 -210 -130 -90 -90 >> (cash) >> lost benefits -160 - 90 - 60 -80 -40 >> (noncash) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> NET GAIN,LOSS $-390 $30 $1010 $2900 $8270 >> Is this fair? >> It is futile to shift the blame to Congress on this issue. I have seen similar misrepresentations of the situation before, it is amazing how many people can misunderstand such a simple principle. If you look at the tax tables for the last few years (this is a great time of year to do it) you will notice that all accross the table there was a straight percentage decrease in taxes due to the "Reagan cuts". Of course the low brackets get less actual dollars "back" - they weren't being charged as many to begin with. Is it fair that a person making one half the salary get less than one half the tax break? It is exactly as "fair" as charging the person who makes twice the salary more than twice the taxes. In any event, the tax cut did exactly what it was advertised to do - cut the tax rates by a flat percentage. No suprise, I should hope. As to the reduction in benefits received, I don't know about that, as I don't get any cash benefits (although I am in the right hand column of the above table). I suspect that the kindest interpretation which could be placed on those figures is that they were computed in the same way as the tax reduction - straight percentage drops, with those getting more absolute dollars dropping by more absolute dollars. The source of the table does not appear very reliable - it is too politically motivated. The bottom line of all this is that the bottom line of the above table is ludicrous to those who are paying attention, downright misleading and dishonest for those who are not. Cliff Shaffer ...mcnc!rlgvax!cvl!cas
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (04/09/84)
Oops - slight case of not knowing my right from my left in the previous posting. I believe I placed myself in the right hand column of the supplied table (lots of money) when I meant to say "left hand column" (<10k). Cliff Shaffer ...mcnc!rlgvax!cvl!cas
tac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon) (04/12/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> The Congressional Budget Office just completed a study based upon the >> actual effects of Reagan's economic program. The figures demonstrate >> that Reagan's program has indeed given to the rich at the expense of >> the poor. Moreover the Federal Government lost far more money from >> tax cuts benefitting primarily the rich($93.6 billion), >> than it saved from all changes in benefit programs( $23.1 billion ) >> Is it any wonder Reagan is leading us into bankruptcy? >> Here is how this Robin Hood program for the rich stacks up: >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Income <$10K $10-20K $20-40K $40-80K >$80K >> ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- >> Tax cuts $ 20 $ 330 $1200 $3080 $8390 >> lost benefits -250 -210 -130 -90 -90 >> (cash) >> lost benefits -160 - 90 - 60 -80 -40 >> (noncash) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> NET GAIN,LOSS $-390 $30 $1010 $2900 $8270 >> >> Is this fair? >> It is futile to shift the blame to Congress on this issue. Reagan >> wholly supported this "soak the poor" scheme--the fact that he and >> wealthy lobbyists twisted enough arms of conservative Democrats to >> pass this scheme is hardly an absolution of responsibility. >> I deplore the fact that some conservative Democrats voted for such >> a blatantly unfair program--they should not be re-elected. But Reagan >> proposed it and fought for it tooth and nail. >> >> tim sevener >> Indiana University, Bloomington >> pur-ee!iuvax!scsg >> Now wait a minute minute. (Synonyms folks, look them up.) It seems to me a bit strange that in one letter I read where the government doesn't collect *ANY* tax from the wealthy, and in the next I read where it *CUTS* the taxes of the >$80K income people by the figures listed above. Someone is either 1) telling untruths deliberately, 2) presenting "facts" in a manner to obfuscate the issue or 3) does not understand what they are saying. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is #3. The next step is to disabuse you of the ridiculous notion that this money was given back. The person in the >$80K income bracket seldom pays taxes on that money, and the information above is based on the "Taxable income" which is the amount left *AFTER* all deductions. Along with the cut a few new loopholes were added, decreasing still further the number of people who "qualify" to pay taxes in this bracket. The above information is somewhat misleading (or erroneous) in that the actual effect of the cut on a $40K-$80K family (mine) was about $50.00. The >$80K bracket is also at 50% taxation (now), and the cut was a small percentage (the exact figure escapes me) so those unfortunate few who are still in this bracket are still paying a huge amount of taxes, and you are going to complain about letting them keep a pittance of it? One other thing that you might find interesting is a study of a little known PROPOSED ammendment to the Constitution called the Liberty Amendment which would eliminate the income tax. From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/13/84)
#R:iuvax:2000018:uiucdcs:29200128:000:4187 uiucdcs!renner Apr 13 05:53:00 1984 /**** uiucdcs:net.politics / iuvax!scsg / 6:48 pm Apr 9, 1984 ****/ > The Congressional Budget Office just completed a study based upon the > actual effects of Reagan's economic program. The figures demonstrate > that Reagan's program has indeed given to the rich at the expense of > the poor... Here is how this Robin Hood program for the rich stacks up: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Income <$10K $10-20K $20-40K $40-80K >$80K > ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- > Tax cuts $ 20 $ 330 $1200 $3080 $8390 > lost benefits -250 -210 -130 -90 -90 > (cash) > lost benefits -160 - 90 - 60 -80 -40 > (noncash) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > NET GAIN,LOSS $-390 $30 $1010 $2900 $8270 Unlike some other authors, I am willing to accept these CBO figures at face value. However, the interpretations are suspect. The question here is: do the changes described above represent a system which "takes from the poor and gives to the rich?" I don't have a copy of the CBO report, so I can't tell exactly what the "Income" line and the "lost benefits" lines represent. Because I have to make several assumptions, this analysis is rather shaky compared to my recent articles. Still, let's work some numbers and see what we get. First, we study tax cuts. We compute the average income tax for the adjusted gross income categories above, except that for >$80K we use >$75K. The results are: Income <$10K $10-20K $20-40K $40-80K >$80K ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Avg.tax (1981) $225 $1576 $4234 $10189 $44461 Tax cuts (from above) 20 330 1200 3080 8390 Remaining tax burden 205 1246 3034 7109 36071 The rich, as we can see, are still paying taxes. Next, we study benefit programs. What I want is the average value of government benefit programs to each of the above income classes. I don't have that specific data, but we can still estimate lower and upper bounds if we assume that low-income families receive more aid than high-income families. (The rich don't get food stamps and Medicaid.) Then I get the following results: Total expenditures on benefit programs in fiscal 1984 (est.) . . . . . . $445,377 million 75% spent on program adminstration, leaving 25% for actual recipients . . . . . $111,344 million divide by 93 million tax returns, plus 10 million that don't file . . . . . . . . $1,081 per household. I take this figure, $1081 per household, as a *lower* bound for low-income families, and as an *upper* bound for high-income families. With it, the tax figures from above, and the CBO figures, I produce the following: Before Reagan | After Reagan <10K >80K | <10K >80K ------ ------ | ------ ------ Average tax paid 225 44,461 | 205 36,071 Average benefit from | govt. support programs 1,391 1,211 | 1,081 1,081 ------------------------ ------ ------ | ------ ------ NET GAIN/LOSS FROM GOVT. +1,116 -43,250 | +876 -34,990 Notice that the poor still get support from the government, and that the rich still pay far more in taxes than they can expect in support. The cash flow is from the rich to the poor, not the other way around. The change is that the government isn't taking quite so much from the rich, and isn't giving quite so much to the poor. This is a very different thing from the "Robin Hood for the rich" claims made by some. CONCLUSION: Claims that the Reagan administration is taking money from the poor and giving money to the rich have no basis in fact. I suspect they are made for their emotional and political impact. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner