...

>> Somehow the idea that moving increases up from 2030 to current
>> years doesn't increase government revenue to be spent now is a
>> bit absurd.

 EC> Your attempt to twist the facts is what is "absurd."  The
 EC> law did not jump the 1984 tax rate up to the 2030 rate.  It
 EC> slightly accelerated Carter's tax increases.  Specifically,
 EC> the 1985 rate increase got moved up to 1984, the
 EC> already-passed increases for 1985-87 remained the same,
 EC> part of the already-passed 1990 increase got moved up to
 EC> 1988, and the already-passed increases from 1990 to 2030
 EC> remained the same.

 IOW, you dispute details you did not give the first time around,
 but you ignore the original point.

 EC> Look at your story.  Look at the facts.  Do you see the
 EC> vast difference? Anyone else would.

 Do you see where you ever gave a link to your sources? No one
 would.

 EC> So, as far as the increased tax rates, leaving out the
 EC> other provisions of the law, taxpayers paid a little more
 EC> (and the SS trust fund got a little more) in 1984 than
 EC> would have been the case if the changes had not passed.  In

 And all of what the trust fund got was available and spent on
 other functions.

 EC> 1985, 86, and 87, they payed THE SAME RATE as they would

 EC> The increases were already scheduled to take place.
 EC> Taxpayers paid a little more in 1988 and 89 than they would

 Yet you still don't give your source.

 EC> Is that simple enough for you to understand YET?

 What do you mean "yet"? When you give facts we can argue them.
 Adding them later is your way of spinning the debate. Above all,
 not giving your sources is your way of giving alleged facts that
 are hard to check.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)