Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwatf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!trwatf!root
From: root@trwatf.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Tax reform (another screwing, without vaseline)
Message-ID: <963@trwatf.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 18:06:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: trwatf.963
Posted: Tue Jun  4 18:06:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 23:42:42 EDT
References: <2699@harpo.UUCP>
Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
Lines: 102

>    Under the current system I loose around 35% of my pay to various
> taxes. Under Reagans plan this figure will climb to about 40%. I am
> being taxed like I was a rich man, which I am not because I am single
> without deductions and a spouse to feed and I can't afford a small
> house. Under Regans plan, I might be better to go on the dole and at
> least enjoy the 40% more free time that I now waste fulfilling my
> social obligations.

You're being taxed worse than a rich man.  Under Reagan's proposal, the
rich will make out like gangbusters.  My qualm is that I see little
reason to tax ANYONE at a different rate than anyone else...  the
so-called flat-rate taxation system.  Since when is there a correlation
between a person's income and the burden he places on state and
federally funded works?  If Raegan wanted a moral and just tax he would
propose a flat-rate tax.

The reason he hasn't is that a flat-rate tax could not generate enough revenue
to support our current expenditures.

> If Uncle Sam is trying to cut the deficit then cut the fucking
> defense budget. Billions and Hundred of billions spent on weapons and
> systems that everyone prays that won't ever be used. Why the fuck should
> my tax dollars go to what amounts to a subsidy to TRW, Northrop, Grumman,
> Lockheed, Sperry, and other pillars of American capatilism.

Now you're foaming at the mouth.  Any fool can point to the largest
and apparently stupidist expendature and say "eliminate that and the
deficits will go away and their will be peace throughout the world."
Real life isn't so simple.  If it was, congress would have hacked
the defense budget to nothing long ago.

Large defense contractors don't receive big handouts for nothing.  They
work for their pay.  Sure, some corporations defraud the government in
a big way (like General GoDanamics), but then so do many individuals.
So be fair... yes we COULD reduce defense spending and redirect our energies
to more effecient methodologies for defense.  We could eliminate a lot
of the waste... but defense is here to stay in one form or the other and
everyone agrees, it's going to be expensive.

> aid to Latin Americans who are fighting the bad evil Communist menace.
> Who cares about San Salvador's politics anyway ?

The people of San Salvador.

> While you are at it one could increase the tax rates on corportaions.
> They pay too little as it is.

Oh?  Justify this.  They are legally individuals like you or me.
Shouldn't they be taxed at the same rates?  They will pay much more
according to the Raegan proposal than you.  Looks to me like you've
targeted the evil corporate menace as the ones that should be rifled
for money because they are so grotesquely rich rich rich.  Wealth
isn't a crime.

> They pollute the air, water, and ground. 

So do people.  Any technologically advanced civilization is going to produce
waste products.  They should also be made to clean up the waste.  Many of them
don't, although many are being forced to.  The solution is not higher tax rates,
but proper legal restrictions on what you can do with  air, soil and water and
how you must dispose of waste properly.

> They exploit labor.

Tell that to California Sanitation Workers who make $30,000 a year.
Organized laborers make a hell of a lot in this country and they're
screaming for more.  Why don't we tax "them" at higher rates since
"they" make so much money?

> Of course they could leave the U.S in protest but that could be stopped
> by passing laws that makes it an act of treason if a corporation
> locates off shore to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

This is laughable.  There are laws providing for free trade and that
includes moving off-shore or overseas if my corporation so chooses.
Corporations should be allowed the same tax advantages as individuals
by moving overseas.

> Corportaions should be taxed at around 50% considering that our whole
> economic system is geared to there well being and fiscal health.

Oh right.  And just were do you think the money comes from in the
first place?  YOUR TAXES.  The solution is not to tax corporations which
are funded by YOUR taxes, but to trim away the unecessary spending to
begin with.  This 50 percent number of yours is an arbitrary figure
devised to "get back at the corporations where it really hurts."

I'm sure many small businessmen would have you skined alive for
suggesting such a thing.  Why should Joe's Fish Market pay more tax
than an individual to fund the fucking defense budget?  Billions and
Hundred of billions spent on weapons and systems that everyone prays
that won't ever be used. Why the fuck should Joe's tax dollars go to
what amounts to a subsidy to TRW, Northrop, Grumman, Lockheed, Sperry,
and other pillars of American capatilism.

Get the idea?
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

Rambo: First Blood part III	The Quest for Jane Fonda