Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: give-aways - (nf)
Message-ID: <10100025@ea.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Apr-84 15:27:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ea.10100025
Posted: Tue Apr 17 15:27:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Apr-84 01:48:55 EST
References: <279@teldata.UUCP>
Lines: 42
Nf-ID: #R:teldata:-27900:ea:10100025:000:2198
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Apr 17 14:27:00 1984

#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