From: dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Communist Progressive Tax System (was Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy)
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:19:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.215240.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>A graduated income tax goes against the very principal of equality. Here
>is an example of an ideal tax system (if there ever were one).
>
>Neil earns $300 dollars, Bob earns $600 dollars. Fairness demands that the
>state not interfere with Bob's paycheque simply because he earns more.

Yes, but how did Bob earn his money?

Did he earn the extra $300 because he hoarded a scarce resource, and forced
people to buy it at the price he set?  (Read "Ten Lost Years" by Barry
Broadfoot or "The Depression" by Pierre Berton to learn what can happen
when a free-market economy goes haywire.)

Did he earn it because he happens, by chance, to be good at something that
is currently in demand?  There are lots of people in the world with a great
deal of natural ability *and* the willingness to work hard to develop this
ability, but are unlucky enough not to be in demand in the marketplace at
this time.  (Artists, for example.  Most serious artists work much harder
than anyone else I know.  Of course, they don't think of it as work.)

Did he earn it because he happens to be gifted with abilities and/or
stamina greater than that of those around him?  Do we want society to
serve as a harsh form of social Darwinism?

This is your first error in reasoning:  you are assuming that reward is
strictly a function of effort.  This is not true:  reward is a function
of effort, opportunity, and luck.  Only one of these three (effort) is
controllable by an individual human being.

>Besides, that's communism.

Damn, where's Joe McCarthy when we need him...

>Now, if there were a tax, it wouldn't interfere with the relationship
>with Neil and Bob. City Hall wants to opay the police force.
>The mayor says : "Bob, you earned more money, but it is not our right
>to punish you in the name of 'equality'. After all, you earned that
>money, and you shouldn't be punished for that! Our city needs people
>like you........". 

This is your second error in reasoning:  you are assuming that taking money
away from Bob is "punishing" him.  Don't forget, it is in Bob's interest
to ensure that no one starves to death and that every child has the
educational opportunities he or she needs.  At the very least, Bob will
sleep more soundly at night knowing that his tax dollars are preventing
suffering.  At best, one of these people whom Bob is supporting today
might come up with a cure for cancer, or produce a beautiful work of art
which Bob can enjoy in his old age.

>Hence, the Wise mayor extracts 10% from both Neil
>and Bob, and in the end, Bob still clears twice what Neil made.

Er... but this means that Neil is paying only $30, and Bob is paying $60!
What a leftist pinko approach!  Why not force them both to pay $60?
Or, better yet, let's *reward* Bob for working hard to keep this country
great!  Let's let Bob pay only $30, and force Neil to cough up $60!
(Don't laugh:  this is effectively the reasoning Reagan and Bush have
used in the 1980's.)

>That is justice. That is fairness. That is equality. And anybody who says
>otherwise is a communist.

Da, Comrade!  Pass the vodka!

>And then there is that other town, the communist one. It is poor because
>the Mayor charged taxes and punished all the people who wanted to make
>money with evil communistic progressive taxes. The higher wage earners
>fought back at first and got a few loopholes to avoid paying some of the
>taxes. But the evil mayor wanted more, so these wise people packed up
>there bags and moved to the town where Neil and Bob lived, where City
>Hall didn't punish them for earning more money then other people and
>where there is real justice, fairness and equality.

And here is the crux of my argument:  what, exactly, constitutes "poor"?
The way I see it, a society is wealthy not when a few of its luckier members
are building luxurious houses while its less fortunate members sleep in
the street:  a wealthy society ("wealthy" in the larger sense of the word)
gives everybody the opportunity to do what he or she does best, and ensures
that no one is deprived of this opportunity.  This is what small-l liberalism
is all about.  (Yes!  My true colours revealed at last!  I am one of *them*!
To the battlements!)

>When I make MY first 
>million, it will be in a country where they do not punish success.

I take it you've gotten your U.S. green card, have you?  Don't slam the door
on your way out.

>A country that cannot abide progressive communistic pinko leftist
>NsDaP-Socialist tax policies like those that the good people of 
>Canada have to deal with.

Such as those that fund public universities such as Western?
(Or have you cut a special deal with the bursar that allows you to pay
the full cost of your education?)

>Canada - a loser nation because it punishes success.
>(ever hear about the "brain drain"? This is the nonsense that started
>it all. Politicians are TOO STUPID or TOO MORALISTIC to figure out
>that you don't kick people in the ass to make them stay in Canada)

There are large numbers of talented people who prefer to stay in Canada
because:  (a) it's home, and (b) we *like* living in a place where there
is a social safety net.  I am grateful that my country will try hard to
keep me from starving in the street if employers stop wanting my skills
and abilities.  (And, in case you are wondering:  I have earned my own
living all of my adult life, and have enough marketable skills to ensure
a good living in the U.S. if I wanted one.  I stay here by choice.)

-- "Comrade" Dave Till
"I worshipped dead men for their strength,/Forgetting I was strong."
     -- Vita Sackville-West