From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Communist Progressive Tax System (was Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:49:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.201903.19780@sni.ca> dave@snitor.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:
>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.)

what if Neil earned all his money that way and Bob none of it?
what reason is there to assume this at all anyway?

>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.)

you seem to be missing something here: hard work and ability mean nothing
if they are expended on something that nobody wants. there are no
guarantees in life: you have to earn your way. and most serious artists
understand the choice they make.
>
>Damn, where's Joe McCarthy when we need him...

identifying socialism (pretty obvious in this case) as such does not
make one a McCarthyist. communism is a stronger, more confusing word.

>This is your second error in reasoning:  you are assuming that taking money
>away from Bob is "punishing" him.

it is. it is punishing him by denying him the right to decide
for himself what he thinks he should pay for.

>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. 

the error in reasoning is yours: because if those things are in his
best interest, then he would be free to spend that money voluntarily,
right? where does the government come off telling him what is in
his best interest? where does it all stop?

seriously: what do you think the USSR was doing? it was *exactly*
the same concept: "we are just doing what is best, send us your
money, it isn't punishment, etc...".

>At the very least, Bob will
>sleep more soundly at night knowing that his tax dollars are preventing
>suffering.

bullsh*t. he will lie awake at night thinking about how his freedom
has been violated, and for what. so the government could do a worse
job than he could have done if he donated the money to a private
charity.

>>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.)

give me a break. i am no fan of Raygun or Bush, but where did you
come up with this?

>>That is justice. That is fairness. That is equality. And anybody who says
>>otherwise is a communist.
>
>Da, Comrade!  Pass the vodka!

i hate the word "communist", because the USSR was really totalitarian,
not "communist" as it was intended to mean. but that your ideas above
are hard-core socialism--of that there is little doubt, despite John
LaRocque usual hysteria.

>>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.

well, the US is pretty bad, too. the urge to elect governments that
steal is pretty strong. look at the new "president".

-=-
charles
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada