From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:17:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.005956.23879@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.210356.11971@gvl.unisys.com> yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com (Steve Yavorski) writes:
>>>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>>>	income have 3 kids????
>>Could be because they want them!  
>Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
>choice? If they want to have more kids than they can afford, that's
>fine. But they should live with the result: Poverty. We are under
>no obligation to save them from their own bad judgement.
>
>The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
>protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
>why they should be.

  Okay, then why should companies be given tax deductions or credits
  for:

    1) investing in R&D
    2) taking clients to 3-martini lunches
    3) salaries
    4) depreciation

  It is the choice of these companies to do these things.  No one
  compells them to make any of these investments.  Why should they
  be allowed to deduct one single solitary dollar from their
  revenues before they are charged their taxes?  

  The main reason BOTH dependent deductions and earned income
  credits and various business deductions are in effect is because
  taxation has TWO purposes:

    1) to raise money
    2) to influence public policy

  I know, I know, there is nothing in the constitution that say
  taxes should be used to influence public policy... Well almost
  nothing.  Article I gives the Congress the power to levy taxes
  and pass legislation to promote the General Welfare of the
  people.  You can easily interpret General Welfare to mean
  just about anything.  

  In any case, taxes have always been used to do so.  Home interest
  deductions (the middle class favorite) are used to promote the
  concept that citizens who own homes are more stable and hence
  make better citizens.  Oil depletion allowances were favoriteas
  of big oil companies because the deductions enabled them to 
  take big risks to drill for oil, something that they probably
  wouldn't have done without the deductions.  Investment tax credits
  are designed to promote research and advanced technological
  development (PCs would probably not be here today if it weren't 
  for the R&D deductions available in the 70s and early 80s).  
  
  And dependent deductions are designed to protect the welfare
  of the family, an institution that most people in the country,
  including our dearly departed Veep, feel is extremely important.
  It has always been felt that a minimum level of income for each
  person in a family unit should not be taxed so that there is
  sufficient income to provide for sustenance.  Any change in this
  would have a regressive effect on poorer families.  It is 
  surprising that so many people want to support "family values"
  but are unwilling to provide the poorest families with the
  level of sustenance needed to survive.  Sigh...

  As a feeling, caring human being, I constantly wonder how all
  of you "only the tough survive" people ever get up and look
  at yourself in the mirror in the morning.  You should all be
  ashamed of yourselves.  You remind me of Scrooge in Dicken's
  Christmas Carol: "Well, maybe you should let them alone to 
  starve.  It would reduce the surplus population."  

  What's really scary, is that many of these same people call
  themselves true Christians.  Christ would be ashamed of you.

  Jon Rosen