Taxes Keeping Workers Poor

By RALPH REILAND

   "Forget the minimum wage," says Nate, a dishwasher and 

cook's helper at our restaurant.  "It's taxes that are killing 

me."  He is a college student by day, washes about 1,000 

dishes during the dinner rush, and stuffs and rolls grape 

leaves until midnight.

   Nate makes $6.50 per hour and is proud of what his hard 

work buys.  Aside from college textbooks, he drives an '88 

white Dodge Daytona, eats out at Bellisario's Pizza Palace 

and the South Hills Village food court, plays some golf, and 

has a $30 Silver Arowana splashing around in his tropical 

fish tank.

   If he works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, the government 

grabs $2,889 out of his $13,520 paycheck, a hefty 21 

percent.  The Federal bite is $2,103 -- $1,069 in income 

taxes and $1,034 for social Security and medicare that he 

says he'll never receive.  Then, Pennsylvania snatches 

$379 in income tax and $18 for unemployment tax.  Finally, 

the city of Pittsburgh takes another $369 in income taxes 

before Nate sees a dime. 

   On top of the 21 percent deducted from his paycheck, Nate 

pays a seven percent sales tax on almost everything he 

buys: six percent state sales tax and one percent Regional 

Assets District Tax for the zoo and opera house. That's an-

other $600 in annual taxes.

   When he fills up at Dom's Gulf he pays 42.98 cents a 

gallon in taxes -- 18.4 cents Federal, the rest to 

Pennsylvania. That's $400 a year if he fills up once a week, 

and the governor is seeking an additional 6.5 cents a gallon 

for unrepaired potholes.

   When he pays his rent, Nate is hit for his share of es-

calating real estate taxes funneled into Pittsburgh's public 

schools.  Another rent hike is on the horizon with the school 

board spending $9,000 per student and $31 million a year in 

the red.

   Excise taxes, Federal and state, add $6.60 to every carton 

of cigarettes, then, as a tax on a tax, seven percent sales 

tax is added to the higher retail price. That's $300 if he 

smokes a pack a day. If Nate buys beer, the Federal govern-

ment grabs 80 cents per six-pack in excise taxes. To 

purchase a $30 concert ticket, he pays seven percent sales 

tax plus five percent amusement tax.

   Government takes more than 30 percent of Nate's pay.  

He's washing dishes from January until May for no pay.  If 

any business made a kid wash dishes for four months for 

nothing Reno would be gassing up the tanks. Ironically, 

politicians who keep piling taxes on Nate paint themselves 

as compassionate.

   The story isn't much different for someone earning 

minimum wage. On an annual wage of $8,840 a minimum-

wage employe has to kick in $1,1524 in payroll taxes, 17 

percent right off the top; $335 in Federal income taxes; $676 

for Social Security and Medicare; $248 in state income tax; 

$11 for unemployment tax; and $254 in city income tax.

   The rest -- gas tax, concert tax, sales tax, etc., -- is the 

same as Nate's with one exception.  For a single, full-time 

minimum wage worker, the government returns $31 at the 

end of the year as Earned Income Credit.  Nate, making 

$6.50 an hour and turning over a third of his income to the 

government, doesn't qualify for that.  He's too rich.  

   Why shouldn't low-wage workers be exempt from Federal 

income  tax? Nate would pocket an extra 50 cents an hour of 

his own money. Who can say Leviathan needs money more 

than Nate?  Besides, he would still pay a fourth of his in-

come in taxes. That same hike of 50 cents per hour pay can 

be provided to minimum wage workers by exempting them 

from FICA and Federal income taxes.  Tax exemptions re-

ward the work ethic, improve the fairness of the tax system, 

mandate efficiencies in government, and let people keep 

more of the money they've earned.

   But it doesn't do what politicians want: bring in 

contributions from well-heeled unions.



Ralph Reiland owns a restaurant in Pittsburgh and teaches 

economics at Robert Morris College



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Christian Coalition Lawyer Says Lawsuit  An  Attempt To 

Intimidate Churches   



   According to James Bopp, attorney for the Christian 

Coalition, the Federal Election Commission's lawsuit against 

the organization is a gesture probably intended to intimidate 

churches into refusing to distribute the Christian Coalition 

voter guides

   The FEC charges the Christian Coalition violated Federal 

election laws because the group's voter guides, phone 

banks and mailings helped Republican candidates. Spe-

cifically, the government charges the Christian Coalition 

aided former Pres. George Bush, Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate 

candidate Oliver North and Speaker Newt Gingrich.

   However, Bopp said, the complaint fails to identify actions 

or statements that were supposedly helpful to these 

candidates.

   Press account shave noted that the governments actions 

could cause churches that usually distribute the CC voter 

guides to decline out of fear of losing their tax exemption. 

The voter guides, Bopp said, are not partisan and the 

lawsuit has nothing to do with tax status or with churches 

distributing the voter guides.  But, he said, pastors may 

decide to play it safe and not distribute the guides.  There is 

reason to believe, he said, that is the real purpose of the 

lawsuit.    

   Bopp emphasized that the lawsuit poses no threat to 

churches that distribute the Christian Coalition's voter 

guides. Regardless of how the FEC suit against the Christian 

Coalition is resolved, he said, churches could not lose their  

tax  exemptions for distributing the voter guides. 

   He said it will be necessary to "jump through some hoops" 

to get the suit dismissed.  There needs to be discovery and 

interrogatories to force the commission to specify what the 

Christian Coalition actually did that was partisan.  When the 

answers are not forthcoming, or are inadequate, he said, a 

motion to dismiss could be made.  That, however takes time 

and cannot be accomplished before the election.  

    The FEC is going to lose this case. he said, and in the  

meantime, "People need to have heart and not be 

intimidated by the Big Censors from Washington."



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fuels Treaty "Devastating" To U.S. Economy

  A proposed treaty would obligate the U.S. to reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions by 10 percent by the year 2010 according 

to Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy.

   The reduction, TCSE explains, was agreed to by Tim Wirth, 

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs at a recent 

U.N. sponsored meeting in Geneva. The intent is to reduce 

the amount of so-called greenhouse gasses released into 

the atmosphere in order to retard global warming.   

   The Bush administration had been pursuing a voluntary 

program of emissions reduction, but the new agreement 

commits the U.S. to impose mandatory limits through a 

variety of methods including taxes and regulations. 

   The Clinton administration's intent to change this policy to 

mandatory limits was announced at a news conference in 

Geneva where it received less press attention than if it had 

been announced in Washington.

   The methods reportedly being considered for reducing 

emissions include imposing a $200 per ton tax on the 

carbon content of fuels.  This would result in a tax of about 

60 cents per gallon on gasoline.  Studies by two economic 

research firms, DRI/McGraw-Hill and  Charles River Assoc., 

in-dicate that a tax of half that amount ($100 per metric ton)  

would reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product by 2.3 percent by 

the year 2010, destroy 500,000 jobs each year and cost 

every American adult $852 annually.

   In addition to the burden of higher taxes on gasoline, 

consumer will face higher taxes for nearly everything they 

buy -- reflecting the higher cost of energy used to produce 

and transport goods. 

   Opposition to these policies is based partly on the fact that 

there is no consensus that a problem even exists.  While 

some maintain that industry and other human activities and 

contributing to the level of so-called greenhouse gasses in 

the atmosphere other scientists dispute this connection.  

  Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy point out that World 

Climate Review, a journal published e scientists, contends 

that computer models used to predict global temperatures 

have consistently overestimated the amount of warming in 

the atmosphere.  

   Additionally, Congress' Office of Technology Assessment 

reports that 90 percent of greenhouse gases are produced 

naturally.  OTA also reports that most of the observed 

temperature increase occurred before 1940 while most man-

made gases in the atmosphere were produced after 1940.