From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Smaller government means MORE money for the poor
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 00:25:56 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <2797781969@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com> (ne.politics), usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News) writes:
>Though I must agree there is shameless waste in governmental spend, I'd 
>like to counter this argument with two points:
>
>1) Though people would certainly be able to give and even assuming that 
>they'd be willing to give, it strikes me as unlikely that this hodge-podge 
>of giving would be as efficent as collecting the total monies to be 
>distributed and then passing out according to need sometimes is.

"From each according to their ability to each according to their need"?

Consider the following:

	Case 1:  Person gives money to local charity of choice.  100% of
			money given goes to charity.  Person giving has choice of
			what causes are "just", and gets good feeling from being
			charitable.

	Case 2:	Government takes money from person.  IRS takes some. 
			GAO takes some.  Bureaucrats take some at each level (several
			layers of management, several layers of paperwork, several 
			layers of social workers, etc.)  Typically, governments work
			at about .1% efficiancy.  Person suppliing money has no control
			over amount, or which charity.  Person has no feeling of
			being charitable.

>														  There 
>are some causes that don't advertize well.  And if you felt your cause was 
>important enough, you'd spend some of the money coming in on adverts to 
>encourage more giving.  All in all I suspect it would break even in most 
>cases; some very fashionable things (cancer research?) would benefit; and 
>some less visible things would suffer (vacinations for the poor?).

Different people have different charity priorities.  The government
gives money to "charities" that I am horrified that my money goes
to support.  They refuse others that I feel my money should support.
Why can't *I* choose where my money goes?  Personally, given the track
record of the American Cancer Research movement, I wouldn't give them
a dime.  Vacinations for the poor, on the otherhand I would probably
give a reasonable amount to in self interest: I don't want a viral
breeding ground.  It is not good for *MY* health.

>2) One more time (you folks tired of this rap yet?), if you want to reduce 
>the tax burden on the majority (middle-class) *START MAKING THE WEALTHY 
>PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE*!!!  

Ahh, the old "Soak the Rich".  It will not work.  The wealthy just
do not have enough money to cover the current level of congressional
spending.

For that matter, have you ever considered just *HOW* one becomes wealthy?
There are really two ways: one can either *MAKE* money: developing
a product, building a company, running it successfully, providing
thousands of jobs, etc.  Or one can inherit money.  Those that Inherit
money generally are a net zero on the economy.  On the other hand,
those that Make money often use the money that they have earned to
make more money (usually by investment).  Without that money to invest,
their ability to make money is *SERIOUSLY* crippled.

The "Soak it to the Rich" schemes generally involve the penalyzing
of high risk investments (which usually have high payoffs).  They
penalyze ability.  The result is that the economy declines as much
of the investment capitol gets soaked up in other investment that
offer tax shelter.  Investment in the government is a major area
-- where did you think that the current national debt of almost
four trillion dollars is comming from?  It comes out of the investment 
capital that is the life blood of industry (e.g. JOBS!).  Without 
it, the economy does not grow (the economy needs to grow by about
4% per year to sustain employment).  

Have you ever tried to start a business?  Where are you going to get
the venture capital?  It is not easy, as so much is being used up
by the government.  The Wealthy are protecting what they have.

If that money were made available for investment, the economy would
be growing, because there would be new companies and new products
being created.  Which means more new jobs, and a larger middle class
(which has been shrinking at a truly fearful rate!), which means a
larger tax base.

BTW, the middle class is NOT the largest class: the lower class is.

>					If everyone paid a flat rate, the rate needed to 
>achieve parity with the current gross taxes collected would be 10-15%!  
>The problem is we give all these breaks (mostly to those who least *NEED* 
>them) and so the average citizen has to pick up the burden.

I have a better idea: reduce the size of the government (the Grace
Commission Report is a good starting point) until it costs less than
the *CURRENT* income.  Start paying off the national debt, instead
of increasing it.

BTW, do you have any data to back up that 10-15% number?  

+C


-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:	wi.5036@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

In two years, will you be willing to admit who you voted for 
this year?  Think about it.