Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site teldata.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac
From: tac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan Hood - (nf)
Message-ID: <303@teldata.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 13:29:33 EST
Article-I.D.: teldata.303
Posted: Thu Apr 12 13:29:33 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Apr-84 20:59:15 EST
References: <304@iuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Teltone Corp., Kirkland, WA
Lines: 64

, (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.