From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Consumption tax...Oh no!
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:19:48 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: icat.larc.nasa.gov

larryk@cton.com (Larry Kollar) writes:

>In article <palmer.728056910@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov 
>writes:>
>>
>>Maybe so, but if you noticed, nobody said anything about getting rid of the
>>income tax.  In fact, it's going to go up for everyone, and even get more
>>"progressive" (i.e., the more wealth you create and the more you contribute
>>to society in general, the more the government is going to take what you've
>>got).

>"The more wealth you create?"
>                     ^^^^^^
>"The more you contribute to society in general?"
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Don't make me laugh.  Income level has VERY little to do with creating 
>wealth or contributing to society these days.  Someone posting from a 
>government site ought to know that better than anyone. :-)

We're a research lab, not a paper-shuffling entitlement-handout agency.  :-)

And if you think hard about it, if the income is not generating wealth and
economic activity, then it is unsustainable.  Even "millionaire atheletes"
deserve their "outrageous" salaries -- if the advertisers can make that
much money off of the games by the increase in exposure of their products,
then those atheletes deserve every penny that CAN be paid to them.

If the advertisers didn't rake in the cash, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY MONEY
FOR THOSE SALARIES IN THE FIRST PLACE.


>Case in point:  remove the upper echelons of a good-sized company (say, 100+ 
>employees) for two weeks -- send 'em to a fancy resort on the coast if you 
>like -- and the company just keeps humming along.  (You can't accuse me of 
>setting up a straw man here; I've seen it done at a company I used to work 
>for, fancy resort on the coast and all.)

>Try removing all BUT the upper echelons for two weeks.  Heck, just try 
>removing the secretaries for two weeks and watch the company grind to a halt.

But you're forgetting that those upper echelons are the ones that made the
decisions about what products to manufacture and what markets to enter.  Once
done correctly, sure, 2 weeks of neglect (except in the computer industry)
shouldn't kill the company.  If the workers can do the job better, encourage
them to leave and start their own company.  Seriously!!  Most high-tech
firms have been started this way.

It is the decision-makers (the good ones) that create the most wealth in an
economy, since their output is what guides the production and sale of goods
that succeed in the marketplace.  True, without the workers nothing would
actually get built.  But there's a lot more people who can work than people
who can make good business decisions.

Comment about secretaries accepted without argument.  :-)


>Not that I agree with being born free and taxed to death, but you need a 
>more realistic argument.

The argument was perhaps presented too succinctly, but it was hardly
unrealistic.  Sure, you will be able to find counter-examples that prove
that income and "worth" in general are not ALWAYS related so nicely.  But
if the general case were not true, then free markets of goods & services
couldn't exist.

-- 
Michael T. Palmer         |  "A man is crazy who writes a secret in any
m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov  |   other way than one which will conceal it
RIPEM key on server       |   from the vulgar." - Roger Bacon