Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site tty3b.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Soaking the Rich Message-ID: <656@tty3b.UUCP> Date: Wed, 27-Mar-85 14:16:48 EST Article-I.D.: tty3b.656 Posted: Wed Mar 27 14:16:48 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 21:22:30 EST References: <1982@burdvax.UUCP> <761@bunker.UUCP> Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill Lines: 27 Xref: linus net.politics:7527 net.politics.theory:520 A fair comparison would look at all taxes, not just Federal income tax. Because of Reagan's "New Federalism" (i.e. shift responsibility for programs to the states while not shifting the funds), state taxes increased significantly under Reagan. State taxes are typically regressive straight percentages, so the overall effect of the Reagan tax "cut" was actually a net increase in overall taxation for lower- and middle-income Americans. The real standard of living for lower-income Americans also declined under Reagan as the programs benefitting them were cut first and deepest. This is because the politically unorganized are a much more inviting target. Witness, for example, the uproar over Social Security cuts, a program that would hurt the much better organized. While cuts in programs for the mentally ill, homeless and working mothers were greeted with protest, these were still cut. I'm glad that the apologists for Reagan feel that they must make the argument that his programs are "fair." That is better than the old conservative argument that people get what they deserve. However, it is only with statistical sleight-of-hand that they can ever make Reagan's policies look like anything other than what his own Budget Chief said they were: a Trojan Horse to pass a large taxcut to the upper-income taxpayers that are Reagan's political base. Mike Kelly