-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 trend....an 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 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. Substanceónot 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. Substanceónot 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. Substance—not 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. Substance—not 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
