From: usenet@transfer.stratus.com (Mr. Network News)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Tax the POOR, not the rich!
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:40:59 GMT
Reply-To: Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Organization: Dave_Wetzel

In article <6054@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl 
Neustaedter) writes:

> Since your diatribe is on economics, you might chance to think in 
economic
> terms. Tax breaks for overseas investors are to attract investment. The 
idea
> is that without the tax incentives, they'll take their money somewhere 
else.
> Presumably, they pay income taxes on this in their home countries 
(certainly
> americans earning money overseas do).

This is certainly the *EFFECT* of the tax incentives, it is arguable 
weither making it more attractive for foreign investors to invest in the 
USA is better than making it more attractive for US investors to invest in 
the USA.

I would further argue that if Capitalism and current Economic theory have 
any validity at all, investors will invest where there is demand.  
Encouraging investors to invest for tax breaks does not garuntee that the 
items created at the end of the process will be sellable.  If those items 
are not sellable, then (the way our current tax incentives work) the 
businesses making the items will go bankrupt, the investors will make 
money (by leveraging debt on the business to bolster stock prices), and 
the workers will be laid off.  These laid off workers further decrease 
demand, until eventually the whole economy sinks into recession.  Sound 
familiar?

If we want to give incentives, we can discuss where it's reasonable, but 
surely some of the current nonsense has to stop.  We have to stop 
rewarding businesses for increasing debt (it would also be nice if we 
stoped rewarding *GOVERNMENT* for increasing debt, but that's another 
story).  We have to stop rewarding businesses for paying CEO's 
ever-increasing salaries.  And so on.

> What I've seen from you so far seems to be oriented towards a goal of
> everyone achieving identical net income (after taxes). That somehow 
having
> money is wrong and the possessor should be punished by the government for
> the transgression.
> 
> If I misunderstood you, my apologies. But that's how you have been coming
> across.

I don't think I've ever implied that.  Some folks certainly want to think 
that about what I've said (some folks seem to be saying that critizing 
trickle-down theory is tantamount to treason!), but it's not true.  I'm 
just saying that the current rules favor the wealthy over the middle and 
lower classes.  I'd just like to see a level playing field.  If you take 
risks, you should profit when they're successful, but getting the middle 
and lower classes to cover for you when you blow it is rediculous.

On the other hand, I can see nothing wrong with getting those who have 
more help those who don't have enough (read that carefully: the key word 
is 'enough' as in 'enough to live on').  I do confess that I'd like to see 
no homeless families, no people living in abject poverty, and no 
unemployed.  Though I think it impossible to get to 0% on any of those, I 
find it hard to accept that the same decade that saw the top 6% wealthiest 
American increase their earnings by more than 2000% also saw the largest 
increase in homelessness since the Great Depression.

I don't have the time to spend on debating this to the nth degree, but 
I'll recommend that anyone interested should read Bartlett and Steele's 
"America: What Went Wrong".  The book details the largest transfer of 
wealth since statistics have been kept in this country.  And it's all 
taken from tax records, so it's pretty reliable stuff.

--------------
Dave_Wetzel@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: ne.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc