A response with common sense

The Michigan Partisan

By Page W. H. Brousseau IV
TIMES STAFF WRITER

The Democratic response has proven many of my points. First off, the Democratic Party would rather champion wealth distribution by forcing companies and individuals to send money to Washington instead of hiring new workers, giving pay increases or revitalizing their businesses. The main point of my article, "Who works for the poor?" was missed completely. If I must spell it out then so be it, N-O O-N-E.

People work for rich people, rich companies or themselves. All three are popular targets of the Democratic Party. The Democrats are canine in heir detestation of the rich. According to the 1992 government report, "Statistical Abstract of the United States" on, the breakdown of taxes paid are as follows: "The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75.000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes." Peop1e making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they do not feel particularly rich. They should talk to a single mom who's mopping floors.

But let's work our way up the income scale: The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes. The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes. The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more paid 10 percent of the taxes.

Yet for some reason the Democrats believe the rich do not pay their "fair share." Democratic logic is absent when decrying Bush's tax cut as the cause of the current economic downturn. A tax cut that reduced the top rate by 3% over ten years, and had not even started until January of this year.

Further, it does not take a masters degree from the Harvard School of Economics to conclude that since the rich pay an overwhelming majority of taxes, any cut they receive will affect them more than the lower classes. This is the basis of Democratic attacks on tax cuts, if taxes are cut 1% across the board and someone making $1,000,000 saves more money than someone making $20,000, the rich are considered to be getting the "overwhelming" benefit of the cut.

Those poor who indeed work for themselves will not stay poor for long, and the best governmental po1icy is not to tax the self starter nor demand undue regulation, but of encouragement. I imagine many on minimum wage do have self worth, and it is a good feeling to know that for those individuals, minimum wages is there to fulfill their sense of self worth.

But many more work -hard to improve their education and job skills only to be met with a progressive tax system, which the more they work, to increase income or health care for their families, the more the government takes of their earnings. Instead of pushing programs that encourage people to look around themselves and then look to themselves for more, the Democrats encourage people to look first to the government. Welfare, though having a limited benefit, in the long run destroys initiative and indeed, the freewill of the people that succumb to it.

The Democrats asked us to, "Ponder on what our country would be like if companies did not pay taxes." Okay, even more rich and prosperous than she is now. Companies are not like "every other American worker" that is what makes them companies not workers. All employees employed must pay income taxes; therefore, one can deduce that if company 'A' has to send money to Washington company 'A' will not spend that money on employees, who would then be required to pay taxes. Forcing companies to pay taxes is a perfect example of wealth distribution.

The Harvard response was equally illogical. Where would be the motivation and encouragement for the workers to educate themselves if they received a wage comparable to those with an Associates degree? But alas, truth is out, you are entitled to $12, $15 or even $20 an hour solely because you are working. A "living wage" is what I will be earning upon graduation, but once again, the Democrats see the pursuit of education and skills second to that of governmental wage edicts.

Fortunately, Harvard is a long way from Washington or Flint. As for the $36,000 not $50,000 a year, well I regret that error, however, I give Harvard 10 years before tuition reaches my sum. I do admire the college liberals who seek to improve the wages of their future employees, one $36,000 a year college at a time though.

With constant pursuit of a progressive tax system and an unjustified corporate tax, coupled with a pursuit of a welfare system that does not promote initiative and liberty, the Democrats are bent on driving the affluent to poverty and the poor to a life of scrubbing. And for Democrats that is an endeavor to be proud to work for.