From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Financing the gov't
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:06:15 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

If people are born equal, that means that they at least have some _de juste_
claim to their fair share of the world's resources.  Of course, that is simply
an impossible feat to attempt to regulate, and attempting to realize that
equality, _de facto_, would only result in endless bureacracy and stagnation.

I was told by a Poli Sci instructor that the defense of capitalism (besides our
modern ideas about the need for competition to increase quality) is that it
creates an equity of social power (wealth) based on rationality because surely
the more rational will acquire more wealth than their brethren.  But surely
those who are born into wealth are not automatically more rational and more
deserving of social power?  But to prevent inheritances would severely disrupt
our society and family structure, so such reform would only be detrimental.

A primary function of the government is to maintain a (gasp!) military, and
this accounts for a large portion of how taxes are spent.  The military exists 
primarily to protect the assets of the wealthy.  People who are poor have 
little to lose if everything is taken or destroyed.  People who work for a 
living will survive better under foreign domination than people who don't.

Whether someone is rich or poor, they still are subject to the same base cost-
of-living.  True, the wealthy tend to spend more on their basic expenses, but
nevertheless, all need the same basic amount of food, shelter, clothing, etc. 
in order to simply survive and be in good health.

Widespread unemployment is caused, not by people who are unwilling to work, but
by the lack of jobs available.  The lack of education and training may also be
a factor, as having a better caliber of workers to choose from would improve
the economomy, thereby increasing the number of jobs available.

It takes excess money to get excess money.  If you are struggling to eat
regulary it is unlikely you will ever have a yacht.  So most people stay on
the economic path they were born on.

It is important to consider these things when theorizing on what would be the
"fairest" system of taxation.  I think that for the above stated reasons, the
fairest system, the one that would most gracefully respect the _de juste_
equality of everyone, while providing the least amount of _de facto_ disruption
to society, would either be a graduated scale with deductions or a flat tax 
without, but with the following very important addition:  a cost-of-living tax 
credit.  That is, regionally determine the cost-of-living, and then if people 
don't make at least that much, bump the remainder back to them so they can at 
least survive (eliminating our present welfare system, which not only 
discourages people from working by cutting them off, but also spends the 
majority of its funding on just beaureaucracy).  Add a very improved education 
system (to inspire people to at least do something productive) and perhaps a 
shorter work week (to create more jobs), and I think you've got yourself a 
winning combination.  And in a nation of our great wealth, I think its time we 
did something positive about our poorest citizens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you have nothing to lose but your chains!  |        Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU