From: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:55:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.163602.24394@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec13.062447.26229@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>
>[REAGAN-BUSH RETROSPECTIVE]
>
>>>I haven't seen this thread.  Is it hidden under another Subject: line
>>>or have I simply missed it.  I'm reading this in
>>>alt.current-events.somalia, BTW.  Is the thread in another group
>>>(presumably alt.politics.bush, which I see in the Newsgroups: line)?
>
>>It's in alt.politics.clinton.  After you've read it, throw out another
>>post and I'll respond to that and several of the related arguments
>>further down in your post if, having heard my remarks in the other
>>thread, you still hold to them.
>
>Apparently it's expired at Netcom because doing a regexp search for
>the string "reagan" (caps insensitive) didn't match any available
>subjects in alt.politics.clinton.  Grepping the directory for that
>newsgroup didn't turn up the word "retrospective" (again caps
>insensitive) in any articles subjects or bodies.


Sorry, Greg, my mistake.  It's on alt.president.clinton.  If you can't
find/don't get that group, email me, and I'll send you what I have in my kill
file.



>BTW, I take some offense about the fact that you're so sure my
>opinions will be swung by this thread of news articles.  I find that
>rather hard to believe, since I base my opinions about the Reagan-
>Bush era on personal experience and not the media's retrospective.
>I'm open-minded, not weak-minded.  Besides, even if there were strong
>points made in the thread (which I can't confirm or deny w/o seeing
>it) I'd have to find independant confirmation of them before I'd
>consider them more than just so much propaganda.


I am not assuming you will change your mind, merely entertaining the
possibility.  I also know you are open-minded; otherwise your
responses would be filled with f-words in all caps.  I apologize for
your unintended misunderstanding.



>>   How does one make money at the expense of others?  About the only way
>>I can think of are through monopolies or cartels, but the U.S. market
>>is quite competitive, and there are laws against monopolies.  
>
>Re-read the first of the two paragraphs of mine above, where I list
>some of the many ways to cheat others out of their rightful income,
>investment returns, or savings.



Liquidation is quite legal, but insider trading is not, and the SEC in
fact is overzealous in some cases.  Michael Milken, if you examine the
details of his "crime," did not actually break the law--he was more of
a scapegoat.  In any case, the S&L scandal was the result of trying to
do the right thing (deregulation) the wrong way (stopping halfway.)
The owners of those S&Ls were free to do as they pleased, but the U.S.
Government kept them under the protection of the FSLIC, so they
weren't liable.  Clearly this presents a problem, but the effect, I
believe, was not intended as a way to institutionalize a con game.



>>   The millionaires I know are honest.  Cheating on income taxes, to a highly
>>profitable extent, is difficult and rare, especially among the
>>wealthy, who really get reamed when audited.  You hear about it, but
>>in the absence of an award for exceptionally scrupulous tax returns,
>>there is little counterplay.  
>
>Well, one of the millionaires I know has a rather large house that he
>once bragged to me (in private) was appraised at $100,000 for tax
>purposes.  On the Dallas market I'd estimate that it should be more
>like 10X that.  He acts as if cheating on taxes is normal, accepted
>behavior.  He often comments that the tax rates are _set_ at a level
>such that, once one cheats a little, they're paying the correct amount
>that the government wants them to pay.
>
>I'm not saying that being a millionaire automatically makes one a
>criminal or a cheat.  I'm saying that it's acceptable behavior among
>an alarmingly large and growing croud.


Possibly it is; I do not believe it to be the case.  I will reiterate
that the cheating is illegal, so let's get the IRS to crack
down, rather than decide it's okay to hit everyone with a punitive
levying of taxes, on the assumption that a high number of those
affected may be committing illegalities. To wit, direct the defense to
the area under siege.


>>>   You may be referring to loopholes--I've never understood why they
>>are named such, as if the government made a mistake writing the tax
>>code and they DIDN'T KNOW people were going to take advantage of it.
>>Tax laws are tax laws; tax shelters are not some secret bank that the
>>rich get to hide their money away in.  They are a form of investment,
>>designed to get people to put their money into it, so the investment
>>will perform as intended, i.e. a loan of money to the government so
>>they can afford to pay for our big budget.
>
>Loopholes are a different case.  No, the legislators aren't so dumb as
>to not know they're there.  It's a simple fact that the holes came
>into existance and remain open due to lobbyists.  It would be
>political suicide to advocate closing many of them.


These that you mention here are not good, I agree, but they are
directed at specific industries or specific companies, _not_ the
wealthy as a whole.  Let's kill the special interests' meddling, by
all means--such exemptions are just a particularly skunky form of
pork.



>>>They're entitled.  They're also entitled to pay a fair share of taxes.
>>>It's not like they government will be taking everything over a
>>>particular cap sum of a person's income.  They'll simply be taking
>>>more from the wealthy than they did before.
>
>>How do you determine what a fair share is? In my mind, a fair share is
>>the same percentage of income as everyone else pays, perhaps 2-3 %
>>more if you must.
>
>I'd like to see a flat-rate income tax myself, but with the current
>financial condition of the country I don't think it's possible to do.
>Perhaps in the future...
>
>As it is, the wealthy _can_ afford to pay a higher percentage than the
>middle and lower classes.  They won't starve.  They won't lose their
>homes.  It's unlikely they'll feel it in any other way than
>psychologically.


Certainly they are capable of forking it over, just as I am capable of
doing without an extra CD or an expensive bottle of scotch.  We cannot
descend to the point of deciding taxes based on who can afford to pay,
because we run into the difficulty of where that amount ends up.  You
are a reasonable man by your take on taxes, but at some points in our
nation's history, the highest tax bracket was 75-90%.  The Swedish
even now pay out the ass for their socialist state.

These highly graduated tax brackets are, in effect, a redistribution
of wealth.  For where does the extra contribution of the wealthy go?
Certainly not to the benefit of everyone, as if it were providing for
the national defense.  No, this money goes to entitlements and the
like.  It does not go toward the deficit, I can assure you; I read the
text of the Save Our Nation's Cities plan that David Dinkins just sent
over to Bill C.  It calls for supplemental spending, which, if you're
not familiar, means borrowing more money and _adding_ to the deficit.
If they're going into debt on that, you can be pretty sure the extra
$10 billion scraped out of the wealthy won't countermand it.

That its only affect is psychological (plus financial) is irrelevant,
for to my way of thinking, a man who is successful and performs well
for his country by producing great things should reap the benefits of
his labor.  His skills help the economy, our level of technology, our
standard of living in general--let's not kick him in the face for it.
Bill Gates, for example: even professional athletes are envious of his
kind of cash, but he earned every penny of it, because he makes good products.

I will make the same argument for those athletes and even the
liquidators; excluding illegal activity, these people are paid for
what they do.  Someone thinks it's worth millions to have a guy who
will hit little balls out of your park, he'll pay that much.  If he
thinks a good catcher who costs less is a better deal, the pinch
hitter will have to accept a lower salary or go elsewhere.

Larry the Liquidator is good for us, too, for he maximizes efficiency
in our nation's companies.  Strong companies, you'll notice, do not
get bought up and hacked to pieces.  It's always the little squeakers
who made a couple of bad moves or the aging giants, now obsolete.  This
efficiency ensures that we always have the best technology, that the
right employer will find the right employee faster, and that there are
lower prices.  Although the U.S. still supports the agricultural
industry, we have no need for so many farmers.  A hundred years ago, a
substantial chunk of our citizens were involved in the business.  Now
it is many less, which is fantastic--survival, the simple production
of food is no longer as crucial a part of our economy; those people
can move on to more beneficial areas.



>Significant work should be done with the extra money to increase the 
>tax base by improving the working conditions of the lower class
>taxpayers.  

I don't see it as the responsibility of the wealthy.  Any job is a
contract between the employer and the employee.  Both sides have to
agree to the terms.  Besides, with the strength of the unions these
days, I think you needn't worry about the conditions of the working
class.  Ever drive by a construction site? Count the number of
workers.  Now count how many are working.


>[I removed the parts where we agree.  I'm glad we do, though.]  

So did I and so am I--maybe we'll eventually have pared this down to just
a few MB <g>.


>>>Yes, but _some_ programs work.  The point is that we have to figure 
>>>out what works and apply it to more kids.  It's relatively well known 
>>>that most gang members are in them because there's nothing else to do.  
>>>It's also about the only available source of income for them.  
> 
>>Nothing else to do?  Why don't they go to school? Or get a job? I 
>>don't claim it's easy, but, without a doubt, it's their only chance.  
> 
>Getting them to go to school is part of the point of the programs 
>[what alliteration! ;)].  As for getting a job, there has to be a job 
>to be gotten first...  


Admirable alliteration, but never neglect the importance of individual
responsibility in arresting academic apathy.  Regarding the rest, I
live not more than a mile from the heart of Harlem.  Edifying employment
emplacement is evident and effluent.


>
>>>>Read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind.  
>>> 
>>>I'll at least keep an eye out for it.  
> 
>>Find it before you do anything else--it'll cow you.  
> 
>Again, please don't be so condescending as to think my opinions can be 
>changed so easily.  


It is not condescending to suggest a work which presents relevant
information in more detail than I have time to relate.  It is not in
my power to change your opinions--only you can do that.




Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Followup-To:
Distribution: 
Organization: Columbia University
Keywords: 

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina)
Followup-To:
Distribution: 
Organization: Columbia University
Keywords: 

David
dnm9@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia