Just how accurate was the above contention which was voiced during the primaries? Did the Republicans express the sentiment because it was factual or simply to mislead voters? Let's take a look at whether or not average?? families would be given a break.

One's first thought must be that, in order to have $36,000 in deductions, one must first earn in excess of $36,000. Does that make sense? If it does, then the Dole camp and Mr. Gramm are way out of line in presenting their basic ar- guments against the plan.

Please don't get the wrong idea - The argument being presented herein is not in support of Mr. Forbes but rather in the cause of demanding that every politician be prevented from making misleading statements which misinform or mislead the public.

We all may live in the so-called Land of Milk and Honey but, for most families, the milk and honey are very hard to come by, if not impossible.

How many families living in average communities earn $36,000 per year, let alone earn enough to have $36,000 in deductions? Since the writer does not have ready access to financing to establish an investigative committee (as our Congress does)to prove this point, let's just do some basic, logical reasoning, a method that seems to have escaped so many in government.

First of all, what is the income of an average family? Is it, as one may presume, based on the average income or per capita income?

If so, does per capita income give an accurate picture of actual average families? The last time the author read about the average income, it was stated by the government as being $24,000 per year. Therefore, the average couple would be earning $48,000 per year.

Think about your own community. Are most people earning $24,000 (also, the upper limit for a family of four to qualify for subsidized housing) or is it much less? In order to earn this amount of money, the hourly income (based on 51 weeks, 40 hours per week) has to be $11.22 per hour.

Do politicians actually believe average people in average communities (operationally defined as less than 25,000 population as we don't want to get into average size of towns and cities along with money) earn $11.22 per hour?

Next, in order for the average family, Mom, Dad, and two children, to earn $36,000 per year, the joint hourly income has to be $17.64 per hour. On an individual basis, this amounts to $8.82 per hour. This writer has been in many, many communities throughout the Midwest and south-central to southeastern United States ranging in population from 500 on up to 50,000.

In the communities (his business dictated finding out incomes of families), very few people earned $8.82 per hour. As a matter of fact, joint incomes often did not exceed this amount by much in that joint incomes ranged from around $9.00 to $12.00 per hour.

So, you might ask - how can the average income per person, the old worn-out, overused, inaccurate per capita income, be as high as $24,000 per year?

Did you know that if you have fifteen people earning $10,000 per year and five eaning $20,000, that the average income is $12,500? Thus, in this very simple example, the majority (75 percent) are earning $4.90 per hour, slightly more than minimum, but statistically earning $6.17 per hour. This shows a 25.9 percent greater average earning than what 75 percent of the people in the example actually earned.

Let's carry this out a bit further. The following example is based on an actual production company which employs 30 workers. The employees earned just under $15,000 as an average annual income while the two owners, after overhead, netted 3.5 million.

What's the average income of the people earning their livings through this company's production? Yep, that's right. The per capita income, as would be stated by the government, would be a whopping $123,437.50.

Expanding this example to cover the entire community, but without considering the incomes of any other business own- ers' incomes, the writer assumed that 50 per cent of the community were adults employed fulltime, which would be 1500 employees. After interviewing many employees from many different businesses, the writer found the average income, to be under $6.00 per hour.

For illustration purposes, we can use $6.00 per hour as an average. This is a realistic representation of communities ranging from quite small up to 10,000 or more population. Without including any business owners, other than the production company, the per capita income in the community was just under $15,000 ($14,850.60).

So, what's the problem? The reality is 99.87 percent of the community's working people are actually earning just under $13,000 per year. But, computing per capita income has inflated actual incomes by approximately l5 percent. If you were one of the employees, wouldn't it be nice to have the apparent income in your pocket instead of actual income?

At any rate, one must be very careful when "averages" of any measurement are used to prove a point, particularly if the person using the average is attempting to manipulate thoughts and/or feelings. Statistics can't be manipulated but interpretation of statistics can be.

The question is what this all means with a $36,000 flat deduction as was proposed by Mr. Forbes. Would the average family not have tax advantages if Mr. Forbes's plan was accepted?

Well, unless this writer's head is in the same place as some of the politicians, 99.87 percent of the example community would not have had a income even close to $36,000. Therefore, NO tax liability.

Even if three or four lived together and could file their taxes together, it would be highly unlikely that their total deductions would meet or exceed $36,000. Therefore, a flat deduction of $36,000 would be to there benefit. It seems to this writer as if most families (at least 60 percent) would, indeed, have a tax break. Please don't allow professional politicians to mislead you. This includes another argument used by Dole against the flat tax system proposed by Mr. Forbes. Dole also contended that the system, particularly, the $36,000 deduction, would lower property values.

Just based on his ads that ran on television during the latter primaries, how in the world did Dole tie a flat deduction of $36,000 with property values? Does he believe that an inducement of an ordinary, everyday family to buy is being able to deduct interest and, therefore, sellers keep the prices of homes higher in order to attract buyers?

At any rate, the point is that since most people can't buy homes expensive enough to provide a deduction of $36,000, middle income Americans would come out ahead through years of taxes NOT being paid, especially if proper guaranteed growth investments (Yes, they are out there) were used with money that would have been paid in taxes.

In summing this up, out here in the real world, a world wealthy politicians apparently haven't any concept of, a world where so many of us must struggle just to get by and, maybe, have enough for some recreation, there are very few families that would not benefit from a flat deduction of $36,000.

How beneficial? In the community as described in the exam- ple, the only families with an income tax liability would be the two business owners. And, possibly, that is as it should be. The owners of the business used in the example prosper tremendously from their employees, and, all the way to the bank, swear they can't pay more.

The employees, as most Americans with a good work ethic will do, work hard to meet demands, even though understaffed, and, while the employers blow thousands upon thousands eve- ry year, the employees are provided little enough to live on.

And, in the case of us "average" families, if a flat deduction far exceeds our incomes, then we most definitely deserve the tax break with additional burdens placed on those who have become well-off or wealthy from our efforts.

When a politician makes like statements as those uttered during the primaries, think of your own situation and whether or not you would benefit from proposed changes, and, thusly, whether or not an elected official is trying to manipulate your thoughts to his own advantage rather than yours.

Yes, consider the source and whether or not the expressed belief is more to the politician's advantage rather than the public's. If he is suspected of stating misleading information, then confront him and make him prove his point.

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, may be the only way we will ever get the facts and the truth.