From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: socialism (was B isa MF)
Summary: Scandanavian Socialism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:52:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.155813.164737@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>Actually, it fits Sweden pretty accurately.  I don't know where this guy
>>gets his 35% tax rate.  Perhaps he's just talking about the tax rate on
>>those of low incomes.  If you are a high-income Swede, the tax rates 
>>become confiscatory (the 85%+ rates you described).  Now, they have in
>>the past year or two been backing away from this insanity, but I know that's
>>how it used ot be a year or two ago, and I doubt it has changed all that 
>>much yet.

>People earning more should pay more tax, they have a social
>responsability (funny how everyone wants to bring up their
>rights but take no responsabilities in return for them) and
>their money is worth more. 

People have rights without having to "buy" them by accepting unchosen
obligations thrust on them by social engineers (or fuhrers, kings, or 
Ted Kennedy).  The "responsibility" that goes along with one's rights is
simply to refrain from violating the rights of others, not to submit to
the will ofthe majority.

Why do you think that people have a responsibility to submit to taxation?
Do they have no rights if they refuse to do the bidding of the majority?
What do you think rights are anyway?  

>How? if you have a surplus of
>money you can
>	buy in bulk and save
>	not pay interest and save
>	invest and have the money earn more for you.

>So $1 in the hand of the poor may only be worth 90cents
>after they pay interest on things and $1 of truly
>discretionary disposable income in the hands of the better
>off may be worth more than $1 just spent at the shops. So it
>is only fair that those earning more should be taxed at
>higher rates.

What in the world are you talking about?  Are you saying that since the 
rich generally handle their money better, they ought to be taxed at a higher
rate than everyone else?  That's incredible.  Do you actually believe that?
I have also heard the opposite argument which is that an extra dollar in the
pocket of a poor person makes their personal life makes his life a lot
better, and taking it away makes it a lot more miserable, whereas, the value 
of an additional dollar to a rich man won't makes his personal life much more
comfortable (thus his money is "worth less to him").  My guess is that you
simply hate rich people and like to see them abused.  Is that really it?

>I do not advocate 85% marginal tax rates however as we
>need some incentives.

Oh, how kind of you to "allow" people to keep some of the money THEY EARNED.
What business is it of yours how people use their money?  What "WE" need if
for people like you to keep your nose out of other people's business.  You
have no more right to tell me how to spend my money (or to take it) than I
have to tell you what you may or may not do in bed.  Both are private matters.

>In Australia the highest is 47% and most don't pay more than
>39%, the average tax rate is around 25-30% over the
>population.

Why are the rich treated so poorly in Australia?  Why do they deserve to 
have their money stolen by the government at a higher rate than everyone 
else?  What right does the government have to steal from the anyone for 
that matter?

>What really needs to be done in taxing higher earners
>is to distinguish between productive investment, which
>creates new wealth and jobs and so should be rewarded with
>tax allowences for the risks involved, but at the same time
>highly tax investment that is more concerned with
>merely accumulating wealth without taking much risk.

>>Socialism is bankrupt, morally, economically, and politically.
>>Now all we have
>>to worry about is the stench, and what other kind of nonsense might grow up
>>in it's place.  At this point it looks as though racist nonsense or 
>>environmentalist nonsense is the next form of the same madness.

>That all depends on the type of socialism, Finland is doing
>very well out of it, so is France. I think the thing you are
>refering to is imperialism, be it capitalist or communist.

There is no such thing as "Capitalist Imperialism" (though there can be
mercantilist imperialism or mixed-economy imperialism) but ALL socialism is
imperialistic in the sense that they necessarily violate the rights of 
the citizens and establish an empire of power over the individuals.  
Being subjugated by an empire of one's countrymen is no better than if it is
done by foreigners.

>Are you aware of what happened in south africa and some of
>the reasons why they were forced away from apartied?

>	blacks were uneducatied
>	90% of the population was placed on 10% of the land
>	  causeing huge environmental degredation
>	blacks had no vote and no political power and almost
>          no wealth

>	Hence: the whites dumped toxic was in drums in the
>	homelands and because the blacks were poor and
>	couldn't read they cut the drums open to make barbeque
>	plates, pouring the toxic waste directly into the
>	rivers that became the whites water surply.

If you think that toxic waste was the cause of the end of apartheid, I have 
some really nice swampland you might be interested in.

>Basically the situation was unsustainable, as the whites
>realised, fucking over the blacks and the environment was
>acutally fucking themselves over.

So it was all just an environmental issue huh?  You have a very vivid
imagination.  Perhaps you ought to consider a job at the National Enquirer.

>If you truly want an efficient economy and a good quality
>of life you have to treat the environment and other people
>with respect. 

I don;t know how you can treat an inanimate object with "respect" other than
to idolize it, but the primary reason for my opposition to socialism is 
precisely that socialism is by defintion not respectful of individuals.
Slavery is not a respectful relationship.  (Sure, you'll say, but it's
only half-slavery in Sweden...that makes it OK!)

>Anything else might appear to work in the
>short term but in fact the only way forward is to realise
>that the environment, the economy, social justice and
>democracy are all inseperable.

Ha!  Where is the justice is the government taking away the product of
one's labor without one's permission?  Where are the economies of the
socialist/communist countries?  Where do you see the worst pollution,
in socialist countries or mixed-economy countries?  As for democracy,
the public freely "voting" their their own money is a lot more "democratic"
a way of allocating resources and rewarding producers than having some
bureaucrat do it.  Socialism loses on all counts.  Sorry.

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.culture.canada