From: elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green)
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:22:41 CDT
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Distribution: world
Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home

From article <21512@rpp386.lonestar.org>, by jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II):
> In article <1992Sep12.041559.13290@wri.com> walsh@spider.wri.com (Jerry Walsh) writes:
>>And this ratio is not very meaningful.  Income tax is just
>>one way the government hits people's wallets, and it's virtually
>>the only revenue component that has any progressivity at all.
>>Incidentally, a good way to reduce this ratio would be to
>>narrow the disparity in income levels.
>
> The resulting system would not be free-market capitalism.

The United States currently does not have free-market capitalism. The
United States currently has regulated capitalism. You cannot arbitrarily go
out and create a monopoly via economies of scale, for example -- that's a
violation of anti-trust acts. Similarly, you can't just churn out stock
certificates to keep someone from buying your company (a common thing done
in the days before the SEC -- just keep churning those suckers out so that
the takeover rapists, err, venture capitalists, can never get ahold of a
majority of them).

>  We
> saw what narrowing "the disparity in income levels" does - it
> causes the collapse of the country.

I have not seen Germany collapse yet. I have not seen Sweden collapse yet.
For that matter, I did not see the United States collapse in the years
where the disparity in income levels wasn't so wide as today.

> wouldn't result in earning more.  If I made the same amount
> whether I worked like a slave or whether I screwed off, I'd
> screw off.

You're confusing a regulated capitalistic system with a communistic system
(which, as you note, will not work due to the motivational problems you
mention). Nobody said that the rich should not be rich. All that was said
was that there should be some attempt to allow the poor to raise their
standard of living, too, if the poor are willing to work long and hard
hours. If someone works sixteen hours a day seven days a week for minimum
wage, is it really obscene to say that maybe this person deserves health
insurance for her children?

>>Let's talk about a young married couple earning a
>>combined $25,000 per year.  They pay 16% of their gross income in
>>federal income and FICA, and this doesn't even count the employer's
>>equal FICA contribution, which directly impacts their earning
>>potential.  They do not get any social security or welfare benefits.
>
> Sure, now let's talk about the $5K that they receive, on average,
> in benefits from the Federal government.  Let's see, .16 x 25000

Uh -- I make $21,600/year, and as far as I know I haven't seen $5,000 in my
mailbox from the federal government. What "benefits" are you talking about?
Are you talking about "benefits" like higher food prices (due to Federal
price supports)? Are you talking about "benefits" like getting 7.5% of my
income taken out for a "retirement system" that will most probably be
bankrupt by the time I get old enough to take advantage of it? What about
the "benefits" of higher prices on everything from cars to stereos due to
Federal manipulation of the currency relative to the Japanese yen and
German mark?

Or maybe you mean the roads I drive on. Whoops, those are paid by gasoline
taxes, of which I probably don't pay my share, but I drive an economy car
so I figure that I'm entitled.

I'm stumped. What $5,000 are you talking about?

Is this yet another John F. Haugh III burst of hot air?


>>As for the truly destitute, who are hardly paying taxes at all,
>>what can we reasonably expect?  Blood from a stone?
>
> Them to pay for as much as they receive?

The way I see it, if a person is willing to work hard and work long, that
person should be rewarded for that work with reasonable health care and
an adequate diet for that person and her children. I know this isn't the
"pure capitalistic system" that you so fervently believe in. But pure
capitalism has not worked anywhere that it has been tried. Time after time
it has been proven that some regulation of capitalism is needed in order to
prevent employers from abusing their monopoly position relative to
lesser-skilled employees.

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"