From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:59:13 GMT

In article <HJwgwB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>> 
>> The general public is under that impression because of propaganda
>> from the left and from the rich.  The left is absolutely stupid...
>> they argue for a progressive tax system...but since they are never
>> in power, it is never imposed...and the rich who are in power,
>> institute a tax system which looks progressive, but is riddled
>> with loopholes...and creates unproductive and wasteful jobs for
>> bureaucrats, lawyers, and accountants.  The way to get the rich
>> to pay taxes is to have flat taxes.  The majority loses from
>> a progressive tax system...not gains.  
>> 
>> Gerald
>
>
>You mean that, because the left has never been in power (I presume you 
>mean federally) it's their fault that the rich have a tax system 
>advantageous to the rich?
>
>I agree with your assessment of the present tax system, but I'm more
>pessimistic than you about the ability of the rich to evade taxes, flat 
>rate or not.

The left has a notion that runs like this:
'since you are more productive, better educated, more efficient, and
work harder, or have had some luck on your side, you are morally OBLIGATED
to hand over fistfulls of money over to governments who didn't earn that
money'

Now I won't get into the MORAL side of the argument, because that is
irrelevant (ie lefties will say we ARE obligated to look after one another,
righties will disagree. The result will be a shouting match.)

The objective side is different: the people who try to evade taxes are
really just trying to preserve the property they own (they aren't trying
to take it away from others). Since taxes consist of payment for services 
one receives (which morally or objectively, you must pay for) and 
payment for 'other stuff' that has debatable merits. Pure self interest,
and purely rational behavior for that individual (depending on relative
risks). Just try taking food away from an animal that's eating it. The
behavior is no different.

One can look at the motives for action of 'society'. Society somehow
deems that it is the starving hyena, and must try and take the food
away from the lion that has caught (earned) it. This is rational
behavior for an individual, but it is questionable behavior for a government.

By each individual persuing his own perceived self interest, you get a much
better balance: the best prosper the most ,but things like charity and
compassion for others also evolve, as a form of self interest (if you
have enough, it doesn't hurt to give a BIT to those without enough, if
only to stave off envy and violent mobs).

Again, whether we are OBLIGATED to provide for others, is a MORAL choice,
not something that is a fact, based on a person's self interest.`
>
>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)
>
>Support your fellow Canadians. We should buy lousy Canadian novels 
>instead of importing lousy American novels. - Johnny Wayne


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________