Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!eagle!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!cas
From: cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan Hood
Message-ID: <916@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 16:23:03 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.916
Posted: Mon Apr  9 16:23:03 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Apr-84 00:24:31 EST
References: <304@iuvax.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Md. Computer Vision Lab
Lines: 40

>> 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