From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:52:26 GMT

>>>Actually, one could say the same thing about the Republican Administrations
>>>by switching the words "the rich" and "the poor."  The rest sounds just
>>>like what criticism of the Reps did.
>>
>>On the contrary, buying the votes of the rich doesn't get you much in an
>>election, since there are not very many rich people.  Furthermore, there is 
>>a BIG difference between allowing people to keep the money THEY earned and 
>>forcing people to cough up money for transfer to others who DIDN'T EARN it.
>>It's the difference between me spending MY dollan and me spending YOUR dollar.
>>Get it?
>
>  Please define this concept of 'EARN' in a fashion that is independent of
>the social-politcal-economic system within which it is assigned, measured,
>transferred, and protected and then we can discuss what is an appropriate
>type of governmental levying and allocation of such 'earnings' in the
>abstract and absolute way in which you seem to want to frame the issue.

Huh?  Do you mean in terms of that antiquated, incorrect "dielectical
materialism" so popular in those stagnant Communist Regimes, which by
any yardstick failed to function socially *or* economically.

IN basic psychology (if you don't want an economic argument - which i suspect
would be wasted on you, not really understanding supply and demand and all),
if you TAKE something from someone and give it to someone else, no matter
how you idealogically dress it up, it feels like theft to the person you took it
from (at least after a certain point), and the person you give it to in thoise
same idealogically structured justification, will then feel like it is 'owed'
to them for some abstract reason.

When a government sets up the rules for obtaining wealth, and someone plays
by those rules and does well in obtaining wealth, we can safely say that
that person EARNED the wealth (if laws were broken, you can then say what you
implied - stealing, but only then).

>>
>>>IMNSHO, the "trickle-down" theory allowed the upper few percent to gain
>>>about 60% of the income growth throughout the 80's.  
>>
>>Indeed, they were alolowed to MAKE that money.  They didn't steal it.
>>Would like to see the government forbit people from making money?  Do you think
>>that anything other than poverty could result from the government outlawing 
>>economic productivity among the most able segment of the population?
>
>  On the contrary, many were able to accumulate wealth, that lead to 
>further wealth and growth of that wealth, under a system that favored
>and supported that activity. A different system might not have. Neither
>their efforts nor their 'goodness' are/were sufficient to achieve it
>themselves. Some of those methods are fair, some are foul, some are
>weghted in their favor and to the detriment of others. Presuming the
>activities and accounting are legal, the accumulation of the wealth
>was also, but is not the same as fair, just, or self-generated.
>
>
Those were the rules, so they DID EARN the money.  I just suggested that
perhaps the rules might be changed (taxes included) because the government
was favoring the 'elite.'  I am not saying that any great disservice was done,
just that trickle down failed to perform and create the environment that 
the Reps wanted : a wealthier population as a whole.
>
>>>By that reasoning,
>>>it it justifiable to tax them more (tax where the least pain and most
>>>gain as a society) than those without $$$.  
>>
>>What "reasoning"?  It is THEIR MONEY.  THEY EARNED IT.  You seem to think
>>that the government took money away from poor people and deposited it into
>>the accounts of rich people.  If anything, the rich have been paying 
>>much more than everyone else for a long long time, and it is about time
>>that everyone pay them back for this injustice.  I don't advocate that myself,
>>but it is much more consistent with your stated principle than increasing
>>the taxes on them.

No, not at all.  Please refrain from overlaying your concepts on mine.  I am
very free market oriented, but dislike hypocricy.  The hyp. I am talking about
is the tax system that allows the wealthy to pay a lower percentage of their 
taxes than the lower.  The purpose of graduated income tax is to tax those that 
have money more (share the pain).  The whole purpose of allowing the rich
to EARN that money is that their increased purchasing power would enrich all
the income brackets through 'trickle down' (increased spending).  It did not
work, so it is justified to try something else.  I agree that their EARNED
INCOME is EARNED, however, taxes are not thefts.  And we KNOW transfer payments
don't work too well, so (I hope) that Clinton follows up on his plan and tries
to implement another system.  

I am not saying that "I am rich because you are poor"  Not at all, I feel however,
that another system of enriching everyone needs to be tried.  I see no justice
or injustice at all.  Geez.  Don't put words inb my mouth! (keyboard? :) )

>  There you go again with this absolutist concept of 'earning' that is
>independent of the system within which it is collected and measured. One
>could also make arguments that they are more dependent upon the system
>than the 'poor' and therefore owe it more. After all, how much of a
>society does one require to sucessfully sustain ones poverty ?
>

Oh shut up!  You sound like some Ex-Communist trying to form theories about
dielectical materialism.

>>
>>>[For a scary example where this did not happen was France, pre-Revolution,
>>>where the nobles owned 95% of the wealth, yet paid no taxes, while the
>>>peasantry and commoners taxes *started* at 60%.  You need to tax where the
>>>money is, plain and simple]
>>
>>And in the US the money is in the middle class.  The situation in France 
>>was much different in several respects, not the least of which was a legal
>>system that didn't allow commoners the freedom to produce wealth freely
>>and trade freely.  Focusing in on the the fact that there was a big difference
>>in wealth between the rich and poor gets you nowhere.  The important question
>>is WHY was this the case.  Look at it this way, for hundreds of years before 
>>the revolution, the King owned 100% of the wealth (which he shared sparingly
>>with his vassals).  Why didn't they rise up and revolt 100 years earlier?
>
>  Because the social structure and its underpinnings and institutions,
>including the church, did not favor the questioning of authority and
>the equality of human beings that was necessary for a revolution of the
>mind that was necessary before a revolution of the body-politic was
>possible.

Wherte do you get this whacky stuff!
:)

-- 
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ ^  ^  ^
| Brent L. Irvine         |  "Love is blind ... and stupid." | {\{|}/} CLAN
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu |                      -M.P.       |  {{|}} IRVINE
+-------------------------+----------------------------------+  o/|\o OF DRUM
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa