editorial__
Tax simplification
is a positive move
We all pay taxes, and we all dread the bite of the tax col
lector. but it is virtually impossible for the average American
taxpayer to comprehend the effects of President Ronald
Reagan’s proposed tax-simplification plan.
The present tax system is bulky and full of loopholes.
Many believe it only benefits the wealthy or those who are
clever enough to take advantage of the system. Many hard
working men and women who earn middle-class wages pay
more in annual income taxes than business executives and
large corporations.
iviusi mnencans una me prucess uxiiair, unnecessarily
tedious and full of long hours of burdensome paperwork.
The Reagan tax plan is intended to change much of this.
Under Reagan's plan (according to. Monday’s
Washington Post):
• Taxpayers who earn more than $200,000 annually
would pay 18.7 percent of their income in federal taxes,
which would be a decrease of 2.3 percent from what they
currently pay.
• Taxpayers who earn between $30,000 and $50,000
annually would pay 7.3 percent, which would be a decrease
of .5 percent.
• Taxpayers who earn between $10,000 and $20,000
annually would pay 2.5 percent, which would be a decrease
of .7 percent. .
• Taxpayers who earn less than $10,000 annually
would pay 0.9 percent, which would be a decrease of .5
percent.
• Overall, individuals would pay 5.2 percent less in
federal taxes than they do now, while corporations would
pay 22.5 percent more. •'
The plan also would:
• Increase from 40 percent to 50 percent the amount of
capital gains subject to taxation.
• Allow for the taxation of unemployment arid black
lung benefits, employer-provided death benefits, as well as
all workers’ compensation benefits.
• Let corporations deduct 10 percent of the value of
dividends they pay stockholders.
We support the concept behind the Reagan plan. It is
high time that the federal government simplifies our na
tion’s tax code. Currently there are 14 tax brackets. With
loopholes and bracket creep, taxpayers rarely know in
which bracket they belong.
In addition, the present tax form is so complex that it
can take a trained accountant days to sift through an in
dividual's tax return. White House aides say that Reagan’s
tax schedule is so simple that the Internal Revenue Service
could annually calculate the amount of taxes most in-'
dividuals would owe the IRS. The IRS could then send the
bill to the taxpayer.
But despite our support for the plan we are concerned
with specific aspects of Reagan's proposal.
Like Reagan, Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and Rep.
Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., have worked foj a number of
years for the simplification of our tax system. (Reagan's staff
consulted with the two throughout the development of
Reagan’s tax plan.) Bradley and Gephardt have introduced
congressional legislation calling for similar tax
simplification.
Their plan, like the Reagan plan, would limit the total
number of tax brackets to three while closing many
loopholes. But unlike the President’s plan the Bradley
Gephardt bill would close a greater number of business
loopholes.
Sen. Bradley is concerned that Reagan’s plan is too
generous to oil and gas companies, doesn’t boost the capital
gains tax enough and hasn’t adequately estimated the
revenues resulting from the Reagan bill.
We have similar concerns.
Past actions have shown that the President is firmly en
trenched in the pocket of big business. Whether it is through
earlier Reagan tax plans or by the actions of his subor
dinates, Reagan has shown that in the heat of most any con
troversy he will side with America’s corporations.
Certainly, businesses need incentives for growth. Tax
cuts and loopholes have their place in any creative fiscal
policy. But Reagan must ensure that we all share the burden
of paying for federal services. He has not done so in the past.
The concept of the Reagan plan is good; it does have
many positive aspects. We just hope that it will not prove to
be another windfall for big business. Instead our elected of
ficals must sift through the complexity of the plan and en
sure that it is truly fair and equitable.
letters
Lip service
We find in the British
Medical journal, “it is alarming
that some male homosexuals
still donate blood, and it Is vital
that all possible measures are
taken to discourage this.”
(March. 1985)
Unfortunately, the new blood
screening test won’t protect all
the blood supply from AIDS
either. A study in the December
.22. 1984 issue of The lancet
points out that not all people
harboring the AIDS virus pro
duce antibodies. So the test may
show up negative (no an
tibodies to HTLV-3) even
though a blood donor is an in
fected carrier of AIDS.
. Our legislators should stop
worrying about the objections of
the small homosexual "rights"
movement and put the public’s
safety first. Because most
Americans even oppose the
concept of "gay rights.” ob
viously the vast majority of peo
ple wouldn't object to penalties
for homosexuals caught
donating blood. I’ll even bet
many liberals would have no
misgivings over such
legislation.
Too many homosexuals carry
the HTLV-3 virus to risk allow
ing them to donate blood. The
Constitution allows for quaran
tining people with leprosy and
T.B., so making it illegal for
homosexuals to give blood isn’t
at all unconstitutional.
Remember the Typhoid Mary
case?
emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald la published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co., at the
University of Oregon. Eugene. Oregon, 97403
The Emerald operates independently ot the Universi
ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial
Union and is a member of the Associated Press
General Suit
Advertising Director Susan Thelen
Advertising Sales Laura Buckley. Tim Clevenger. Jen
nifer Fox, Michael Gray - Intern, Robin Joannides - Intern,
Carlos Lamadrld - Intern, Marcia Leonard, Rick Martz,
Nancy Nielsen, Brett Plckman, Laura Willoughby - Intern,
David Wood
Production Kelly Cornyn, Storml Dykes, Manuel Flores,
Kathy Gallagher. Dean Guernsey, Jackson Haring, Susan
Hawkins, Kirk Hirota, Grant Keltner, Rob Kraft, Ross Mar
tin, Karin McKercher, Laurl Neely, Kelly Neff, KaraOberst.
Curt Penrod, Michele Ross, Alyson Simmons, Peg
Solonika, Karen Stallwood, Colleen Tremaine. Hank Trot
ter, Mary VanCura.
Production Manager
Classified Advertising
Assistant to the Publisher
Russell Steele
Vince Adams
Jean Ownbey
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Sports Editor
Sidelines Editor
Friday Edition Editor
Entertainment Editor
Night Editor
Michele Matassa
Mike Sims
Michael Kulaga
Costas Christ, Dave Bern*
Brent De La Pa/
Sheila Landry
Kim Carlson
Michael Duncan
Michael Kulaga
Associate Editors
Administration
Higher Education
Politics
ASUO
Student Aclivlties
Community
Features
Jolayne Houtz
Scott McFetrldge
Paul Ertelt
Mary Lichlenwalner
Diana Elliott
Cynthia Whitfield
Lori Stelnhauer
Reporters Sean Axmaker, Kirsten Bolin, Michelle Brence.
Robert Colllaa, Julie Freeman, Thomas Henderson, Robin
Joannides. Allan Lazo, Adam Worcester
Photographers Dean Guernsey, Kirk Hirota, Jim Marks,
Ross Martin, Karen Staliwood, Hank Trotter
News and Editorial 666 5511
Display Advertising and Business 666-3712
Classified Advertising 666-4343
Production 666-4381
Circulation 666-5511
Who-cares if supporters of the
“right" of homosexuals to give
blood might object? So what?
After all, to prove their commit
ment they could stipulate that if
they ever need blood they
would prefer only homosexual
donors. However, I’m sure
these people's convictions
don't extend any further than
lip service.
Michael Cross
History/Political Science
Late Summer
When my bloom was faded,
my color soft from too much •
sun.
The dew my only shine,
I looked up anxious and tried to
please
As I had done before, aiid I was
plucked. • .
But what was this?
Not only cast aside, but fed to:
sheep.
Am I no more than that?
I was not picked, but .gathered. -
Fodder to munch.
My bloom had turned to fruit.
And then to food and then to
flesh.
Over and over I tell myself
As 1 am being chewed,
This is my purpose, this was my
aim.
I was made for this.
The pain of being plucked
Was worth tho satisfaction of
the touch.,.
But being mauled, and chewed,
and swallowed.
To be some creatures dung.
This was my purpose?
For this I bloomed?
Lisa Stimple
Eugene
Prove it
Recently, A.K. Stanton wrote
in to take a few shots at Dan
Martin and Dan Goulet, and
then at the Bible. Stanton called
it "the greatest book of con
tradictions," and'then proceed
ed to quota from it — of course
using verses out of context.
Time to hack up your careless
pot-shot with some proof, Stan
ton. 1 hereby .issue a challenge
to you or anyone else who
think-s the Bible is full of con
tradictio'ns. or even has one , for
that matter. Brian Frary and 1
will give $100. cash to the first
person who can ’prove, a
theological contradiction
within the Bible.
Do your homework, Stahton,
and the word of God just- may
surprise you. ...
If you want to give* it u shot;
call 4H4-5<J(i6.
Charlie Richards
Eugene
letters Policy
The Kmerald will attempt to
print all letter* containing fair
comtmmt on topic* of interest to
th« University community.
1-otters to the editor must Im>
limited to 250 word*, typed,
signed and thn identification of
thn writer must bn verified when
She letter is turned in. The
Kmerald reserves the right to edit
any letter for length or style, Let
ters to thn editor should be turn
ed into the Kmerald office. Suite
.100. HMD.