From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:48:50 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep6.003215.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
]Taxation has more of a "we're all in this together"/social contract
]basis than a "stealing" basis.  It's the dues you pay for admission into
]a republic, IMHO.  Saying "taxation = stealing" is an LP campaign tactic
]guaranteed to fail, because it is far from clear that taxation is
]equivalent to stealing (a loaded word) to most people, including me.

Taxation, AS PRACTICED IN THE US, has more of a Robin Hood sort of
stealing than a sharing basis. The idea of punitively taxing the
"rich", of taxing capital gains and interest with a method that can
reach over 100% of true gains, and the idea that taxing should be
used to coerce socially acceptable behavior (through selective deductions
and credits) does not sound like a "we're all in this together"
sort of thing. It sounds more like "there are more of us who can steal
a lot from the fewer who have more" sort of mob mentality. The sad thing
is that not only is this envy/greed stuff ugly, but it also doesn't
work - the middle class ends up paying more and more taxes, and only
the power mongers in government benefit.

The biggest problem with this as a political issue is that the
american public seems unwilling to catch on to it, and the press does
their very best to conceal it.

]Even with the income tax close to 0% for the very lowest bracket, people
]suffer and go hungry for lack of food and housing now.  Eliminating the

There is not evidence to show that ANYONE is going hungry or lacking
housing in the US today due to a lack of government programs.

]income tax means you must reduce the federal government's size, yes, but
]that means axing programs that hurt THOSE people most.  No leaders except
]those of totalitarian countries would intentionally inflict such pain on
]so many people.  A bad situation would worsen.

There are many, many recipients of federal tax money who are not
in that category. For example, farmers receive around $50 billion
per year; elderly people receive hundreds of billions per year, whether
poor or not; pork barrel (outside of the farming pork) consumes much
more. Administrative costs for welfare programs are enormous and
don't have to be. If we had kept the growth of federal social spending in
the last four years just equal to the inflation rate, there would be NO
deficit today, without cutting any spending.
]
]If a lot of people choose the latter, then functions formerly provided
](however inefficiently) by the government thru tax dollars wouldn't
]even begin to be made up for by private enterprise.  $20 billion (the
]estimated damage figure I heard today for the hurricane) means every
]man, woman, and child in the U.S. would have to donate $80 each to relief
]efforts.  I doubt most people far away from the damage will send $320
](assuming a family of 4) to Florida instead of putting it towards a home
]redecorating or a new stereo, even if there were no income tax.

Well, let's consider this reasoning. FIrst of all, you assume that
most of the tax rebate will go into consumption. If it instead goes
into investments, it will increase the size of the economy in a
multiplier manner, which well increase the wealth available to
everyone. Second, you mention the hurricane. First of all, insurance
is going to pick up almost all of the costs there, as it should. Second,
why should we pay for those who are foolish enough to live in hurricane 
alley without proper insurance?
]
]Again, the LP's math doesn't work out.  A precedent was established in the
]1980s with the S&L scandal.  S&Ls were deregulated in the hopes that
]more money and fewer restrictions would increase the amount of wealth
]in the country for more people--exactly the scenario envisioned by the
]LP.  Instead, the S&Ls bought stock in overpriced real-estate and
]burned most of their capital in frauds and risky investments, and all
]that wealth was pissed away.  I don't want to risk that happening in
]general with Libertarian governments.

Look, if the federal government had not been using TAX dollars to
insure S&L deposits, the S&L fiasco would never have happened. It was
that insurance that encourage savers to put money into unsound S&L's,
and it was that practice that FORCED S&L's to make unsound investments
in order to compete for funds. Thus, the government created this
monstrosity through it's intervention and funding of S&L's.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!