Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- Mr. Sowell is engaged in a rather clever campaign of disinformation. Please read "America: What Went Wrong" by Barlett and Steele. Sowell's points are refuted by the statistical evidence compiled by these two Philadelphia Inquirer researchers. Their study is based on US Census and OMB statistics which show that the bottom half of American society is worse off than they were in the halycon days of Jimmy Carter. Sorry. The facts do not support Sowell's position. On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, M.A. Johnson wrote: -Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell WHEN YOU HEAR POLITICIANS and intellectuals talking -- often very loudly -- about "the rich," do you ever wonder who they are talking about and how much money those "rich" people make? And do you ever wonder why those who are making so much noise about the rich don't just come right out and tell us what kind of money they are talking about? Instead, we hear about the top 10 percent or the top 5 percent. But why so squeamish about saying how much money that represents? There is a reason for all this noise about the rich and for all the silence about how much money is involved. Talking about the rich is politically very useful for whipping up envy and getting support for heavy taxes. But the incomes of most people in the top 5 or 10 percent are a lot less than most Americans would consider rich. If the incomes of all the people in an American household adds up to $72,000, that puts them in the top 10 percent of all households. But, when a husband and wife make $36,000 apiece, most of us would not consider them rich. Nor would we be likely to think that putting heavy taxes on them would be a good idea. Any attempt to lower the taxes of such a couple is guaranteed to bring out the noisy demagogues in Congress, denouncing "tax cuts for the rich" because people in the top 10 percent would benefit. But the only people whose taxes can be cut are the people who are paying taxes -- mostly people in the upper brackets, who are not rich. Even the top 5 percent of households do not usually fit what most of us would consider to be the rich. If all the incomes in your household add up to $127,000, then you are one of those top 5 percent who are so rich that the government thinks it should be taxing you like mad. That's $63,500 apiece if husband and wife are both working about what mid-level civil servants would make. Or, if only one person is working and earning the whole $127,000 alone, that is about the average salary of a college president -- and much less than the average income of a college athletic coach. It is nowhere in the ball park compared to the incomes of top lawyers, corporate executives or professional athletes. What about the really rich people --- the ones with their own private jets and mansions here and there? There are such people but there are not enough of them to affect the statistics very much. Moreover, genuinely rich people usually have tax accountants to go with their jets and mansions, so that they can keep their jets and mansions. The people who really get hit hard by taxes that are supposed to be aking the rich are ordinary people who happen to be at the stage of their lives where they are earning more than they did in years past and more than they will be earning in the future. These are largely people in their 50s or early 60s who have worked their way up to a decent income and are seeing much of it drained away by politicians who proclaim that "the rich" ought to pay "their fair share." This "fair share" is as completely undefined as "the rich" themselves. The demagogues don't dare talk specifics in either case or people will start to see through them. If we look at wealth instead of income, it becomes even more obvious that "the rich" are not a different class of people but largely people in older age brackets who have accumulated some money in a pension fund, paid off most of their mortgage and put a little money aside to see them through retirement and the illnesses of old age. The average net worth of households headed by someone 65 years old or older is more than 10 times the net worth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age. But these aren't different classes of people, because everyone who is 65 or older was once 35 or younger. Many of the statistical "poor" are just as fictitious as the statistical "rich." For most Americans, being in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution is strictly a transitional phase. More of them rise to the top 20 percent than remain at the bottom, and the rest of them are scattered all in between. Most Americans are likely to have incomes in the top 10 percent at some point or other during their lives. So when politicians start talking about taxing the rich, send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- In the following Mr. Tunstall writes that Thomas Sowell has been proven wrong by two Philidelphia Inquirer researchers. He does not specify what exactly in his article has been refuted. However, he does state that their study shows: "that the bottom half of American society is worse off than they were in the halycon days of Jimmy Carter". This may or may not be true, but I could find no reference to that question in the whole of Mr. Sowell's article. Howard Davis -- From: William Hugh Tunstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery Date: Wed, Jun 9, 1999, 2:25 PM -Caveat Lector- Mr. Sowell is engaged in a rather clever campaign of disinformation. Please read "America: What Went Wrong" by Barlett and Steele. Sowell's points are refuted by the statistical evidence compiled by these two Philadelphia Inquirer researchers. Their study is based on US Census and OMB statistics which show that the bottom half of American society is worse off than they were in the halycon days of Jimmy Carter. Sorry. The facts do not support Sowell's position. On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, M.A. Johnson wrote: -Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell WHEN YOU HEAR POLITICIANS and intellectuals talking -- often very loudly -- about "the rich," do you ever wonder who they are talking about and how much money those "rich" people make? And do you ever wonder why those who are making so much noise about the rich don't just come right out and tell us what kind of money they are talking about? Instead, we hear about the top 10 percent or the top 5 percent. But why so squeamish about saying how much money that represents? There is a reason for all this noise about the rich and for all the silence about how much money is involved. Talking about the rich is politically very useful for whipping up envy and getting support for heavy taxes. But the incomes of most people in the top 5 or 10 percent are a lot less than most Americans would consider rich. If the incomes of all the people in an American household adds up to $72,000, that puts them in the top 10 percent of all households. But, when a husband and wife make $36,000 apiece, most of us would not consider them rich. Nor would we be likely to think that putting heavy taxes on them would be a good idea. Any attempt to lower the taxes of such a couple is guaranteed to bring out the noisy demagogues in Congress, denouncing "tax cuts for the rich" because people in the top 10 percent would benefit. But the only people whose taxes can be cut are the people who are paying taxes -- mostly people in the upper brackets, who are not rich. Even the top 5 percent of households do not usually fit what most of us would consider to be the rich. If all the incomes in your household add up to $127,000, then you are one of those top 5 percent who are so rich that the government thinks it should be taxing you like mad. That's $63,500 apiece if husband and wife are both working about what mid-level civil servants would make. Or, if only one person is working and earning the whole $127,000 alone, that is about the average salary of a college president -- and much less than the average income of a college athletic coach. It is nowhere in the ball park compared to the incomes of top lawyers, corporate executives or professional athletes. What about the really rich people --- the ones with their own private jets and mansions here and there? There are such people but there are not enough of them to affect the statistics very much. Moreover, genuinely rich people usually have tax accountants to go with their jets and mansions, so that they can keep their jets and mansions. The people who really get hit hard by taxes that are supposed to be aking the rich are ordinary people who happen to be at the stage of their lives where they are earning more than they did in years past and more than they will be earning in the future. These are largely people in their 50s or early 60s who have worked their way up to a decent income and are seeing much of it drained away by politicians who proclaim that "the rich" ought to pay "their fair share." This "fair share" is as completely undefined as "the rich" themselves. The demagogues don't dare talk specifics in either case or people will start to see through them. If we look at wealth instead of income, it becomes even more obvious that "the rich" are not a different class of people but largely people in older age brackets who have accumulated some money in a pension fund, paid off most of their mortgage and put a little money aside to see them through retirement and the illnesses of old age. The average net worth of households headed by someone 65 years old or older is more
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell William Hugh Tunstall Mr. Sowell is engaged in a rather clever campaign of disinformation. snip information about some book Sorry. The facts do not support Sowell's position. MJ: The 'facts' in the book you cited? Dr. Sowell's research certainly 'jives' with the Internal Revenue Service's numbers AND the House Ways and Means'. Perhaps it is you who are attempting to be 'clever'. Who Pays Federal Individual Income Taxes, 1994 Taxpayers # Returns (K) AGI (M) Tax Paid (M) %AGI %Tax Inc Split Top 01% 01,150 0,546,720 152,696 13.8 28.7 195,981 05% 05,749 1,102,836 252,385 27.8 47.4 090,913 10% 11,499 1,552,121 314,786 39.2 59.1 068,737 25% 28,747 2,481,040 423,328 62.6 79.5 042,734 50% 57,495 3,371,349 507,120 85.1 95.2 021,817 Less 57,495 0,589,571 025,523 14.9 4.8 in thousands in $ million in dollars Source: Preliminary IRS Data Tax Foundation 1250 H Street, N.W. Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20005. Percent of Total% Income Earners% Income Level Tax Revenues *(next inclusive) Total of Income 28.7 1.0 13.8 $185 000 59.0 10.0 39.0 $ 67 000 79.2 25.0 46.0 $ 42 000 95.2 50.0 85.0 Source: Overview of the Federal Tax System, House Ways Means Committee. (1992) *next group includes the prior ie. 10% includes 1% group, 25% includes 10% and 1% groups, etc. Distribution of the federal income tax burden The top 1% of income earners pay 26% of the tax The top 10% pay 58% The top 20% pay 73% The bottom 40% pay less than 1% The bottom 60% pay 10% of the taxes collected. Source: Overview of the Federal Tax System, House Ways Means Committee, 1992. Regard$, --MJ When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government. -- Grover Cleveland, Second Annual Message; December, 1886 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- Mr. Davis, If you will closely examine Mr. Sowell's essay, you will notice that he is interested in attacking what he considers to be the demagogery of politicians and intellectuals who are interested in "whipping up envy" in order to support heavy taxes. I think that charge is unfounded. If you are a reader of Forbes, you might be interested to learn that during the past few years, there have been more millionaires and billionaires created than at any other time in our history. When your fellow citizens address this fact, I don't think it's a matter of "whipping up envy." Instead, I think it represents a healthy trendan interest in addressing pressing social/political/cultural realities that are being ignored. Mr. Sowell seeks to undermine the notion that "the rich" exist. He throws out the figure of 72,000 dollars as the income level of the top 10 percent without referring to where he got this particular figure. Then he tells us that if you are earning 127,000 dollars a year, you're in the top five percent! Again, he doesn't cite any statistical information to support his claims. If you would read Bartlett and Steele's "America: What Went Wrong," you would be given a more accurate portrayal of American income levels, demographics, etc. What is interesting about Bartlett and Steele's statistics is that they show how the top income earners have fared during the past twenty-five to thirty-five years. However, if you are reluctant to accept Bartlett and Steele's analysis, perhaps you might find it profitable to go back and read the New York Times's report on the US Census. The figures were reported widely, and they depict a society in which the income of the bottom 1/3 of wage earners DECLINED during the Reagan years. During the period of 1980 and 1990, the income of middle class wage earners stayed the same, but interestingly, the top percentile of wage earners saw their earnings increase exponentially. The most conspicuous winners in the American economy were CEOs. Unfortunately, I don't have the figures in front of me at this exact moment. However, if you are interested, I would suggest that you read Bartlett and Steele's book. Only recently, a Business Week article openly recognized what many Americans already realize, that we are becoming a two-tiered society of the very affluent and the poor. The article discussed the fact that during the nineteen nineties, many American firms find it profitable to develop a two-tiered marketing strategy in order to accomodate the new American social reality. If Business Week and the New York Times recognize the problem of a growing class division in America, then I would suggest that Mr. Sowell's essay adds little to the discussion. However, I would agree with him that taxing the rich would not solve our social/cultural problems. Personally, I would like to abolish the personal income tax altogether. But I would like to see foreign corporations and multinationals be taxed at the rates that existed during the Kennedy administration. Sorry for touching on so many different issues, but I think the free and open exchange of opinions can be useful. On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Howard R. Davis III wrote: -Caveat Lector- In the following Mr. Tunstall writes that Thomas Sowell has been proven wrong by two Philidelphia Inquirer researchers. He does not specify what exactly in his article has been refuted. However, he does state that their study shows: "that the bottom half of American society is worse off than they were in the halycon days of Jimmy Carter". This may or may not be true, but I could find no reference to that question in the whole of Mr. Sowell's article. Howard Davis -- From: William Hugh Tunstall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery Date: Wed, Jun 9, 1999, 2:25 PM -Caveat Lector- Mr. Sowell is engaged in a rather clever campaign of disinformation. Please read "America: What Went Wrong" by Barlett and Steele. Sowell's points are refuted by the statistical evidence compiled by these two Philadelphia Inquirer researchers. Their study is based on US Census and OMB statistics which show that the bottom half of American society is worse off than they were in the halycon days of Jimmy Carter. Sorry. The facts do not support Sowell's position. On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, M.A. Johnson wrote: -Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell WHEN YOU HEAR POLITICIANS and intellectuals talking -- often very loudly -- about "the rich," do you ever wonder who they are talking about and how much money those "rich" people make? And do you ever wonder why those who are making so much noise about the rich don't just come right out and tell us what kind of money they are talking about? Instead, we hear about
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- Nice try, Mr. Johnson, but you're in error. Bartlett and Steele use figures from the OMB, the IRS and the US Census Bureau... not the House Ways and Means Committee and NOT the Tax Foundation! But if you will read my response to Mr. Howard Davis III, I am on record for the abolition of the personal income tax. There are a number of ways of raising revenue that would not be so punitive on individuals. So, on this point, we might actually agree. Oh, by the way, I'm not trying to be "clever," Mr. Johnson. I'm just interested in advancing the discussion on these issues. Regards, Mr. Tunstall On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, M.A. Johnson wrote: -Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell William Hugh Tunstall Mr. Sowell is engaged in a rather clever campaign of disinformation. snip information about some book Sorry. The facts do not support Sowell's position. MJ: The 'facts' in the book you cited? Dr. Sowell's research certainly 'jives' with the Internal Revenue Service's numbers AND the House Ways and Means'. Perhaps it is you who are attempting to be 'clever'. Who Pays Federal Individual Income Taxes, 1994 Taxpayers # Returns (K) AGI (M) Tax Paid (M) %AGI %Tax Inc Split Top 01% 01,150 0,546,720 152,696 13.8 28.7 195,981 05% 05,749 1,102,836 252,385 27.8 47.4 090,913 10% 11,499 1,552,121 314,786 39.2 59.1 068,737 25% 28,747 2,481,040 423,328 62.6 79.5 042,734 50% 57,495 3,371,349 507,120 85.1 95.2 021,817 Less 57,495 0,589,571 025,523 14.9 4.8 in thousands in $ million in dollars Source: Preliminary IRS Data Tax Foundation 1250 H Street, N.W. Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20005. Percent of Total% Income Earners% Income Level Tax Revenues *(next inclusive) Total of Income 28.7 1.0 13.8 $185 000 59.0 10.0 39.0 $ 67 000 79.2 25.0 46.0 $ 42 000 95.2 50.0 85.0 Source: Overview of the Federal Tax System, House Ways Means Committee. (1992) *next group includes the prior ie. 10% includes 1% group, 25% includes 10% and 1% groups, etc. Distribution of the federal income tax burden The top 1% of income earners pay 26% of the tax The top 10% pay 58% The top 20% pay 73% The bottom 40% pay less than 1% The bottom 60% pay 10% of the taxes collected. Source: Overview of the Federal Tax System, House Ways Means Committee, 1992. Regard$, --MJ When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government. -- Grover Cleveland, Second Annual Message; December, 1886 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Nice try, Mr. Johnson, but you're in error. Bartlett and Steele use figures from the OMB, the IRS and the US Census Bureau... not the House Ways and Means Committee and NOT the Tax Foundation! MJ: So Bartlett Steele (fallacy of appeal to authority) READ the IRS data BETTER than two independent sources that I cited (three including Dr. Sowell)? 3 to 1. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: But if you will read my response to Mr. Howard Davis III, I am on record for the abolition of the personal income tax. There are a number of ways of raising revenue that would not be so punitive on individuals. MJ: Actually ONLY individuals pay taxes. Corporations, businesses, landlords, etc. merely collect taxes ... passing them along to the individual. *I* favor a head tax coupled with user fees. Each person pays the SAME -- thus 'encouraging' low taxation/spending on the part of government AND equality. Regard$, --MJ About a century ago a group of brilliant Italian scholars set out to study the nature of the state and its monetary affairs. One of them, Amilcare Puviani, tried to answer this question: If a government were trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of its population, what would it do? He came up with eleven (11) strategies that such a government would employ. They are worth examining: 1. The use of indirect rather than direct taxes, so that the tax is hidden in the price of goods 2. Inflation, by which the state reduces the value of everyone else's currency 3. Borrowing, so as to postpone the necessary taxation 4. Gift and luxury taxes, where the tax accompanies the receipt or purchase of 'something special', lessening the annoyance of the tax 5. 'Temporary' taxes, which somehow never get repealed when the emergency passes 6. Taxes that exploit social conflict, by placing higher taxes on unpopular groups (such as the rich, cigarette smokers or windfall profit makers) 7. The threat of social collapse or withholding monopoly government services if taxes are reduced 8. Collection of the total tax burden in relatively small increments (a sales tax or income tax withholding) over time, rather than in a yearly lump sum 9. Taxes whose exact incidence cannot be predicted in advance, thus keeping the taxpayer unaware of just how much he is paying 10. Extraordinary budget complexity to hide the budget process from public understanding 11. The use of generalized expenditure categories, such as 'education' or 'defense' to make it difficult for outsiders to assess the individual components of the budget Notice anything about this list? The United States government uses every single one of those strategies -- and so do most foreign governments. That just might lead a cynical observer to conclude that the government was actually 'trying' to soak the taxpayers for as much money as it could get, rather than say, raising just enough for essential functions. In all these ways, government's constant instinct to grow, to take on more tasks, to arrogate more power to itself, to extract more money from the citizenry. Indeed as Jefferson observed, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- I'm not using an "appeal to authority." Bartlett and Steele are only one source. There are others. But I don't think it's really a matter of my sources versus yours. I think the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and even the Wall Street Journal have had articles featuring what I believe is a growing class division in America. On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, M.A. Johnson wrote: -Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Nice try, Mr. Johnson, but you're in error. Bartlett and Steele use figures from the OMB, the IRS and the US Census Bureau... not the House Ways and Means Committee and NOT the Tax Foundation! MJ: So Bartlett Steele (fallacy of appeal to authority) READ the IRS data BETTER than two independent sources that I cited (three including Dr. Sowell)? 3 to 1. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: But if you will read my response to Mr. Howard Davis III, I am on record for the abolition of the personal income tax. There are a number of ways of raising revenue that would not be so punitive on individuals. MJ: Actually ONLY individuals pay taxes. Corporations, businesses, landlords, etc. merely collect taxes ... passing them along to the individual. *I* favor a head tax coupled with user fees. Each person pays the SAME -- thus 'encouraging' low taxation/spending on the part of government AND equality. Regard$, --MJ About a century ago a group of brilliant Italian scholars set out to study the nature of the state and its monetary affairs. One of them, Amilcare Puviani, tried to answer this question: If a government were trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of its population, what would it do? He came up with eleven (11) strategies that such a government would employ. They are worth examining: 1. The use of indirect rather than direct taxes, so that the tax is hidden in the price of goods 2. Inflation, by which the state reduces the value of everyone else's currency 3. Borrowing, so as to postpone the necessary taxation 4. Gift and luxury taxes, where the tax accompanies the receipt or purchase of 'something special', lessening the annoyance of the tax 5. 'Temporary' taxes, which somehow never get repealed when the emergency passes 6. Taxes that exploit social conflict, by placing higher taxes on unpopular groups (such as the rich, cigarette smokers or windfall profit makers) 7. The threat of social collapse or withholding monopoly government services if taxes are reduced 8. Collection of the total tax burden in relatively small increments (a sales tax or income tax withholding) over time, rather than in a yearly lump sum 9. Taxes whose exact incidence cannot be predicted in advance, thus keeping the taxpayer unaware of just how much he is paying 10. Extraordinary budget complexity to hide the budget process from public understanding 11. The use of generalized expenditure categories, such as 'education' or 'defense' to make it difficult for outsiders to assess the individual components of the budget Notice anything about this list? The United States government uses every single one of those strategies -- and so do most foreign governments. That just might lead a cynical observer to conclude that the government was actually 'trying' to soak the taxpayers for as much money as it could get, rather than say, raising just enough for essential functions. In all these ways, government's constant instinct to grow, to take on more tasks, to arrogate more power to itself, to extract more money from the citizenry. Indeed as Jefferson observed, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a
[CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell WHEN YOU HEAR POLITICIANS and intellectuals talking -- often very loudly -- about "the rich," do you ever wonder who they are talking about and how much money those "rich" people make? And do you ever wonder why those who are making so much noise about the rich don't just come right out and tell us what kind of money they are talking about? Instead, we hear about the top 10 percent or the top 5 percent. But why so squeamish about saying how much money that represents? There is a reason for all this noise about the rich and for all the silence about how much money is involved. Talking about the rich is politically very useful for whipping up envy and getting support for heavy taxes. But the incomes of most people in the top 5 or 10 percent are a lot less than most Americans would consider rich. If the incomes of all the people in an American household adds up to $72,000, that puts them in the top 10 percent of all households. But, when a husband and wife make $36,000 apiece, most of us would not consider them rich. Nor would we be likely to think that putting heavy taxes on them would be a good idea. Any attempt to lower the taxes of such a couple is guaranteed to bring out the noisy demagogues in Congress, denouncing "tax cuts for the rich" because people in the top 10 percent would benefit. But the only people whose taxes can be cut are the people who are paying taxes -- mostly people in the upper brackets, who are not rich. Even the top 5 percent of households do not usually fit what most of us would consider to be the rich. If all the incomes in your household add up to $127,000, then you are one of those top 5 percent who are so rich that the government thinks it should be taxing you like mad. That's $63,500 apiece if husband and wife are both working about what mid-level civil servants would make. Or, if only one person is working and earning the whole $127,000 alone, that is about the average salary of a college president -- and much less than the average income of a college athletic coach. It is nowhere in the ball park compared to the incomes of top lawyers, corporate executives or professional athletes. What about the really rich people --- the ones with their own private jets and mansions here and there? There are such people but there are not enough of them to affect the statistics very much. Moreover, genuinely rich people usually have tax accountants to go with their jets and mansions, so that they can keep their jets and mansions. The people who really get hit hard by taxes that are supposed to be aking the rich are ordinary people who happen to be at the stage of their lives where they are earning more than they did in years past and more than they will be earning in the future. These are largely people in their 50s or early 60s who have worked their way up to a decent income and are seeing much of it drained away by politicians who proclaim that "the rich" ought to pay "their fair share." This "fair share" is as completely undefined as "the rich" themselves. The demagogues don't dare talk specifics in either case or people will start to see through them. If we look at wealth instead of income, it becomes even more obvious that "the rich" are not a different class of people but largely people in older age brackets who have accumulated some money in a pension fund, paid off most of their mortgage and put a little money aside to see them through retirement and the illnesses of old age. The average net worth of households headed by someone 65 years old or older is more than 10 times the net worth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age. But these aren't different classes of people, because everyone who is 65 or older was once 35 or younger. Many of the statistical "poor" are just as fictitious as the statistical "rich." For most Americans, being in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution is strictly a transitional phase. More of them rise to the top 20 percent than remain at the bottom, and the rest of them are scattered all in between. Most Americans are likely to have incomes in the top 10 percent at some point or other during their lives. So when politicians start talking about taxing the rich, send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always,
