Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uiuccsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!grunwald
From: grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: give-aways - (nf)
Message-ID: <11000096@uiuccsb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Apr-84 11:36:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiuccsb.11000096
Posted: Fri Apr 13 11:36:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 08:46:08 EST
References: <279@teldata.UUCP>
Lines: 17
Nf-ID: #R:teldata:-27900:uiuccsb:11000096:000:808
Nf-From: uiuccsb!grunwald    Apr 13 10:36:00 1984

#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."