From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:01:32 GMT

In article <1dur0nINNdq@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

>In article <10418@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mrk Wilson) writes:
>>In <1992Nov10.113318.18425@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:
>>
>>|>  In the other hand, a family making $300,000 a year will pay, at worst
>>|>  a full 28% federal income tax and an average of 7% state income tax.
>>|>  That's 35% or $105,000 a year.  They will pay 7% FICA but only up to
>>|>  $60,000 for a total of $4,200 (just twice the other family) and disability
>>|>  of 1% up to $30,000 for a total of  $300, same as the other family.
>>|>  This adds up to $110,000 for a net of $190,000 a year ($16,000 a month
>>|>  AFTER TAXES!)  I am supposed to shed serious tears for this family if
>>|>  their tax burden is increased another $25,000?  No way, sorry, I simply
>>|>  don't get it.
>>
>>The issue is not can they afford it, but instead, what makes you think that
>>you or anyone else have more right to their money than they do.
>>
>
>Why do you think that someone's money belongs completely to them?  This is
>the incorrect basis of all your arguments.

       Money represents property.  (Or wealth)  Money is just an easy and
consistant medium of exchange.  Besides, it's easier to carry forty bucks
in your wallet than six chickens and a goat.

>Money only has value in a
>society;

       Money has no *purpose* outside of a society, since it's purpose is
to facilitate wealth/property transfers.  What gives money value is faith
that it can be redeemed for something people think is worthwhile.

>one can only accumulate money by interacting with other people.

       If you're not interacting with other people, you have no use for
money.

>Therefore, the system (government) which allows you to interact, which
[...]
>which helps you interact more efficiently (infrastructure), and therefore
>which fundamentally helped you accumulate the money has legitimate claim
>to a significant portion of your money (taxes).

       The government does all of these things because that is it's *job*.
That is the function it was created for and to which it owes its existance.
That doesn't grant it legitimate claim to anything beyond that which is
required to do the job it was created to do.  It's a contract where the
people agree to provide for what is necessary for the government to do the
job it was hired for.  The government has no more "right" to the money
than a security guard you hire has to anything beyond his weekly salary.

>And, BTW, the more money
>one accumulates, the more one has taken advantage of this system, therefore
>it follows that more taxes would be levied on him (or her).

       It is reasonable for those with more money to pay more of it in taxes.
There's a big difference, though, in paying more money and paying a
substantially larger *percentage*.

>Also, poor people deserve to be compensated for their contribution to
>helping someone else accumulate money.

[Theory that poor deserve the money of the rich by their very existance
deleted.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu