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.