From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Rich and Fair Share
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:14:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <QduvJwa00Uh74=zHU6@andrew.cmu.edu>, to0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Oligino) writes...
> 
>    I think it's pretty obvious from all available data that the
>wealthiest top few percent of the population have been living off the
>other 97-99 percent of this country for the last 12 years. The top few
>percent have seen their wealth  surge dramatically while that of the
>middle class and the poor has diminished. The most recent stat is that
>the top 1% has the same total assets as the bottom 51 percent.

What an irrelevent figure!  If the top few percent got their assets by
sending goons with guns and clubs to take the money from the other 97-99%
then you might have a case.  But that isn't what happens.  These "evil"
rich people aren't generally increasing their wealth by means of force or
fraud, although in the cases where they are they should be called to task
for it.  What you are really saying is that people should be punished for
success, whether honestly or fraudulently obtained.  You essentially
equate Ivan Boesky and Sam Walton and claim that since both are in the
top 1% they should be punished via taxation.  Few would argue that
Boesky's fraudulent use of insider information to get wealthy should not
be tolerated (by those injured via his abuse), but to apply the same
logic to Sam Walton (recently deceased founder of WalMart) makes no
sense.  In Boesky's case taxation is an improper means of addressing the
problem and in Walton's case you can't justify the use of force (of which
taxation is a form) against him.

Further, whenever someone uses the word "rich" they don't mean
someone making $1 million+ per year.  The numbers change with inflation,
but the government currently starts claiming you are rich somewhere
under $50,000 per year (based on eliminating tax benefits for the rich,
such as the deductability of IRAs).  Now $50,000 is a pretty decent
salary here in Colorado Springs (or last time I checked Pittsburgh) but
will barely let you buy a shack in the greater Boston or San Francisco
area.  I can tell you the day I stopped being a "liberal":  I was
watching Walter Mondale talk about what he would do as President.  He
looked out from the TV and talked about talking money away from the
"rich".  He mentioned an annual income of which I was just one raise shy.
I looked around my 1 bedroom apartment sparsely furnished with stuff I
picked up at Sears (like a $70 table and 4 chairs).  I looked at the
credit union statement showing a few hundred dollars in savings.  I
looked out the window at my '73 Chevy Nova.  Then I realized that no
matter how small my success, the "liberal" politicians were determined to
redistribute that wealth in order to buy votes.

Your data doesn't support the conclusion that the rich don't pay
their fair share.  Available data (quoted in P.J. O'rourke's "Parliment
of Whores") shows that anyone making (approximately) $53,000 or less
receives more in government benefits (whether they want those benefits or
not) than they pay in taxes.  Anyone making more that $53,000 is paying
more in taxes than they receive in benefits (ie, good roads, defense,
parks, direct support payments, etc.).

That says to me that anyone making more than $53,000 is already paying
more than their fair share and those making under $53,000 are mooching
off the "rich".  Those making less than $53,000 may think that using the
"FORCE of law" to take money away from those making more than $53,000 is
different than the mob sending goons to take it from you, but there is no
difference.  The unfortunate part is that the majority of those
making under $53,000 per year (ie, the vast majority of people) don't
even realize that by asking for more and more government programs and
greater taxes on the rich, they are endorsing mob-style extortion.  The
"liberals" keep trying to cloak this reality in the "fairness" issue,
probably because if people realized they were endorsing theft they'd
immediately send the politicians and big government packing.
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --


.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --