From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 16:31:41 GMT

In <1992Jul20.203500.21908@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>Democrats prefer the equality of slavery to the inequality of freedom.
>They presuppose that man can be equal when it is obvious that we are not
>either mentally or physically.  They are happy to take the property of 
>the rich but would they, in the name of equality, be willing to put lead
>weights on Michael Jordan's legs so that I could have an equal opportunity
>to play in the NBA?  NO - they are hypocrites, only fighting for equality
>on the surface while hoping inside to cripple the achievers.

Cripple?  Do you see any reason why those who benefit the most from
our system should not put something back into that system?  If you make
100K a year, what difference is it going to make if you pay higher taxes?
You would STILL be making more than a lot of people.

>That people keep the property which they earned is what I consider to
>be moral.  That you seem to believe that you have a greater claim to this
>property than they do is awkward.  Did you earn it? No.

You didn't see the point.  Ok, let's not tax anyone.  Now, tell me--who
is going to pay the government's huge debt?

>Now, do the wealthy have an obligation to pay taxes, yes.  Do they owe 
>more because of any reason other than you want to use their money? No.
>I wouldn't want you to be my banker, I might find my account emptied
>because you had a need that you deemed sufficient to take my property.

Right.

The point is not that the needy should steal from the rich (and since
that's your implicit assumption, I can't see that I'm likely to get
through your thick head, but I'll try).  The point is that the rich
should give back to society some of what they get, when in fact many
find every possible way to evade taxes and dodge taxes left and right.

Of course, poor and undereducated people don't have the resources at
their disposal to maximize their income and minimize their taxes--if
you can't put food on the table, you sure can't pay a tax preparer to
make sure you don't pay any more taxes than you have to.

So the poor and undereducated pay "more" taxes than the rich--is this
any more fair than taxing the priveledged at a higher rate?


Personally, I don't think taxes should be anyway.  For anyone.  But
you seem to be arguing that those with money have earned that money
(what about inheritances?) by hard work, and they "deserve" that money
more than the poor people (who work pretty damn hard themselves, they
just haven't had the breaks).  This is ludicrous.  Our system favors the
rich--that's how many of them got to be that way.

>There is a seemingly infinite number of good ideas which the government
>might be best suited to accomplish.  Which of these do we need and why
>do they always require a great deal of money?  

If good ideas don't require a great deal of money, then why to the rich
need to hold on to theirs in order to keep the economy going?
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
               The animal that coils in a circle is the serpent;
   that's why so many cults and myths of the serpent exist, because it's hard
      to represent the return of the sun by the coiling of a hippopotamus.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections