From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:01:58 GMT

In article <BxEEx2.KDI@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.163601.9595@news2.cis.umn.edu> prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>(David Scharfe) writes:
>
>>>I agree, Brian.  Clinton has incredible audacity to speak of "healing"
>>>the nation while he plunders one group of people ("the rich") to 
>>>influence the voting of another ("the poor").
>
>>>This bald-faced promotion of class conflict, combined with shrill 
>>>rhetoric about "healing", is the epitome of hypocrisy.
>
>>Not quite! All nations in the world have agreed that taxation should
>>be progressive, 
>
>And if all the world agreed that you should jump off a bridge would that
>make it a good idea?  Not so long ago, all nations of the world agreed that
>slavery was acceptable too.  Did that make it right?

  Civily right. Governments do not operate, for the post part, on the basis
of abstract moralities. The people, through it's other institutions may
impose such principles upon government - to it's improvement - but it is
not inherently necessary. In this context, what leads to a stable, sustainable
society is perhaps most important.

>
>Here's the REAL question:  Should there be taxation?

   Heres the *REAL* question: can you have meaningful government without it.
That is the practical question that defines the answer. You could argue one
or another economic, religious, or even social philosophy forever and not
reach common ground. The only answer that is meaningful in terms of the
fact of governing and government is whether it can function in the absence
of taxation. If not, there must be taxation. If so, it may bge desireable
but is not necessarily essential.

>
>Another is whether taxes ought to approximate service fees, or whether they
>ought to be used as a method to redistribute wealth from those who earned
>it to those who have not.

  Again, this is a moral/philosophical question which has no deterministic
answer for governing. The issue is what kind and level of taxation is
sufficient for a stable society and sustainable state. A level of taxation
that can't support the state is politcally wrong no matter what abstract
moral basis it has. Similarly, one that exacts to high (i.e. an unacceptable)
price from it's citizens will also lead to politcal instability and may
ultimately result in the state's downfall (see history for examples). In this
context, income redistribution may be a necessary function of taxation if
purely economic means are not sufficient to achieve a universal enough level
of prosperity which produces a stable society.

>
>A secondary question is whether or not taxes should be progressive.

  Again a pragmatic issue. See above.

>
>A third is what the proper extent of the progressive nature ought to be (say, should all income over $100K be taxed away?)

  As before, 'proper' is unrealistically abstract.

>
>>which is why we all pay a fraction of our income
>>towards taxes. If your notion of justice and non-hypocrisy were
>>to hold, everybody would be required to pay the same amount because
>>all of use the resources to the same extent, more or less. 
>
>Actually, one could make a case for a certain amount of progressivity on the 
>grounds that people who buy and own a lot require more protection for those
>transactions and bits of property.  That's not the real issue here though.
>In the US today, most of the money spent is on something other than the 
>protection of life and property.  

  I think it's a faulty analogy to view taxation in the model of user
fees since that is not the sole, or even the most important function
of government: to provide specific services to it's citizens/residents.
It is to provide a stable, nurturing, secure society. Admittedly it often
falls quite of the mark in achieving this. It's more reasonable to view
taxation, taken as a whole, as a membership fee.

>
>The supermarkets don't charge people more for bread if they are rich.  Why
>should the government charge more?

  Consumption is not the proper model for the 'services' that government
provides to its citizens, both corporate and individual. How do you measure
and allocate the costs of maintaining a functioning, stable society on the
basis of so-called 'user fees'. And how do you measure the important of
such an environment to the success that enable people to accumulate and
sustain wealth. It don't think it is measureable on the basis of how much
the buy or even spend; it is somewhat inherent to the system as a whole.

>
>>So,
>>according to your metric even Reagan and Bush were hypocrites 
>>because not only the richer paid more in terms of absolute amount
>>but also in terms of a fraction of their income. 
>
>Of course they were.  Do you think I'm a republican or something?
>
>>Clinton is just
>>saying that he would increase the fraction for the richest.
>
>So?  What makes being rich a punishable offense?  It really burns me when 
>people so callously assert the justice of taking money away from people just
>because they aren't poor.  Why is robbery more acceptable when committed
>against a rich person than a poor one.

  It's easy to try to co-opt an argument buy terminology. The fact is that
taxation is not 'robbery' by definition. You may not agree with the level
or levy and it may even be unfair by some measure and may definitely be
counter-productive, but that does not make it robbery.

>
>Of course, Clinton WILL increase taxes on more than just the rich, but even
>if he didn't he would still be wrong.  I'm for lower taxes for EVERYONE, rich
>poor, and in-between.

  How low, and what is the 'price' of that level to society ?



-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:16382 talk.politics.misc:58846 talk.politics.drugs:7372