From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:05:41 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <1992Oct2.165715.10372@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <1992Sep28.170215.27441@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
> 
> >In article <Buvx3s.J2A@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> >> 
> >> Mind you, I don't like the taxation policies of governments in the 
> >> U.S.  However, if there are going to be income taxes, etc., as they
> >> currently exist in this country, they need to be set up so that
> >> they have the same equivalent "bite" for every person.  $9 in taxes
> >> per week for a person making $50 a week could be just as
> >> "painful" as say, $200 in taxes weekly is to a person making $500
> >> per week, under the concept of diminishing marginal utility.
> >> Charging both the $50/week and $500/week persons with the same amount
> >> of tax (say, $25) is ludicrous!
> 
> >Nothing ludicrous about it:  the $500/week guy and the $50/week guy are,
> >after all, getting the same government, why shouldn't they pay the same
> >price for it?  
> 
> Well, actually they aren't.  Insofar as a lot of the functions of
> government go (smoothing trade and commerce, police, fire, defense,
> etc.) the person with more money has more to protect and is hence
> getting more service.  When you can ensure a $50 vase and a $50k vase
> for the same amount of money, then perhaps this line of argument will
> have more merit.

On the other hand, the poor are the (theoretically) sole beneficiaries
of the various "entitlement" programs that, according to a previous post
in this group, account for 56% of the federal budget. 

> 
> >When each of these guys goes into a store to buy a loaf
> >of bread, they pay the same for it regardless of income:  it's not five
> >cents for the poor guy and 89 cents for the rich guy.  Which only makes
> >sense:  the loaves of bread cost the same to manufacture and distribute
> >and they provide the same marginal utility to both people.  Basing the
> >price of the loaf of bread on "ability to pay" is ludicrous -- as is
> >basing the individual price of government on the same criteria.
> 
> Government isn't bread.

No, "government" is largely a collection of services.  So?  The same
argument applies.

> 
> -- 
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "Congress consists of one-third,
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   more or less, scoundrels; two-
possibly represent its position.	|   thirds, more or less, idiots; and
					|   three-thirds, more or less,
					|   poltroons."
					|     -- H. L. Mencken
Christian H. L. Moller