🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.181554.10763@sadtler.com> rick@sadtler.com (Rick Morris) writes:
>
>What we know is that wealth is not equal.  There are, and will be, rich
>and poor.  What we feel is that there should be a floor below which
>no American citizen should fall.  What we argue is whether or not there
>should be a ceiling, above which we are penalized for rising, and where
>the floor should be built; Federal, State, Local governments, or private
>charities or organizations.
>
>There is a great mix of intelligent conservatism and liberalism here.
>Let me throw out a point which I would love to hear discussed.  (If you
>want me to shut up, just ignore this post.  8-)   )

Don't worry about that.  One thing most people jump at the chance to talk
about is politics.  :)

>1.  For every dollar which the government takes in, it spends $1.80.
>    (I offer no sources, I think I heard this once!)  We just had
>    that huge "read-my-lips" tax increase and the deficit got bigger.
>    Reaganism increased revenue to the government many times over.
>    The deficit mushroomed.  It seems to me that to reduce the deficit,
>    the WORST thing that could be done is to increase taxes.  To
>    increase taxes is to throw wood on a raging fire.

The number you mentioned was quoted by Dan Quayle in his fierce debate
with Al Gore, but I think it was around before he used it.  It's probably
pretty accurate.

>Okay.  I see one flaw.  Reagan increased revenue to the government by
>decreasing taxes which stimulated the economy.  So we are destined to
>larger deficits by tax cuts AND by tax increases.  How about keeping
>taxes right where they are?  Might work if spending is kept at current
>levels (no "cost of living" increases).  Wow.  That sounds painless!

If Reagan increased revenue to the government by lowering taxes, I'm afraid
we're in big trouble, judging from Clinton's plans.  He thinks he will
get more revenue by increasing taxes!

I myself would have loved to see taxes stay right where they are.  The thing
is, most government officials (i.e. Congress) have an agenda which has 
little to do with the deficit.  Their job is to increase spending on X,Y
and Z (determined by their supporters).  I think laws today require them
to come up with funds for X, Y, and Z if they want their suggestions to be
passed, so it's just so easy to throw in a tax to pay for it, even if the
tax increases the deficit and hurts the economy, their plan has been passed.

Maybe we need a general policy of making them find funds by suggesting cuts
in other areas, but that could be bad, too.  I'm willing to bet that for
each dollar Congress saves cutting defense spending, they'll throw away at
least $1.20 on some other idea, claiming the defense cut allows such spending.

>(Simple ideas from a simple mind!  8-)  )

DITTO!

Fred