From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.election,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: To the Clinton supporters
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:35:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxtI2y.3F0
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <BxrE79.2F7@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <BxKFp4.EIG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>In article <lg2innINNpfm@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>>|>Brent Irvine writes (think this is his):
>
>>>|>>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).
>
>>>This is the funniest thing I have read in many a week.  Are you saying that
>>>if the government set up a rule where I pay no taxes but everyone else is
>>>taxed 100% of everything they make over $25,000, then my increased wealth over
>>>time can be said to be EARNED?  And if I evenually accumulated enough wealth
>>>that I was the only person who could contribute to campaigns, thus able to
>>>continue this obviously fair taxation system, then this is EARNED influence?
>
>>If those are the rules, you obtained them legally, therefore (the discussion
>>was trying to come up with a definition for EARNED) you EARNED your money,
>>and did not have it taken away.  
>>Yes, it is earned, it is totally unfair to everyone else, but it is earned.
>
>I disagree.  Whether something is earned or not has to do with whether
>one's posession of the earned thing derives from one's having created
>ir or traded for it.  If the government (or a common thief) takes your
>property without your permission, it was not earned by the bureaucrats or by
>the thief.

Huh?  You are then implying that taxation = theft?  If so, then I disagree.
There are public good that everybody uses and benefits from (both directly
and indirectly), that is the province of government, and is paid for by
everyone through taxes.  No big whoop.  I don't want to get in an arguement
justifying taxes since i am not in the IRS, but do pay them (not happily,
but i *do* know of the benefits)

>
>>>Are you saying that if the government decides slavery is legal for all
>>>persons with red hair, that you will have EARNED the right to go and
>>>enslave a person with red hair (assuming you don't have red hair)?  Or that
>>>if you do have red hair, you should not fight becuase you have EARNED the
>>>right to be a slave?
>
>>I never said that you should lie down and accept what is passed down.  In 
>>fact, if you had read the whole post (yes, i know it got kind of confusing),
>>you should have picked up that I felt that while the Wall-Street movers
>>and shakers had been allowed to EARN their fortunes via favorable rules,
>>I felt it was unfair and should be changed in a way that did not rely
>>upon the debunked "trickle down" garbage.
>
>"Debunked"?  What is so unfair about allowing people to trade with one
>another and keep the results?  Explain exactly what you think is unfair about
>this.

Hello!?  In case you were not keeping track of the "trickle down" theory
it gave the top wealthy people EXTRA tax breaks by tax incentives and
lowered taxes (so they were not "sharing the pain" anymore) thereby
increasing their income.  The hope was that their investments would spur
the economy and raise everyone's standard of living (you see, the wealth
through investment would 'trickle down').

It did not work - in the 80s the middle class stagnated or dropped a little,
while most of the income growth, and standard of living growth was
experienced by the favored groups (mostly due to those special tax breaks
and rates).

Even under the higher taxes, there was trading and keeping of the profits,
also there were taxes (in both regimes), just that under trickle down,
the taxes were lesds equitabl;e (no sharing of the pain, you see).

>Perhaps you would like to try to justify the "new" trickle-down theory
>whereby the government takes away our money against our will and invests
>it so as to cause more to "trickle down" to the rest of us.

AQctually, what Bill Clinton was saying was that our infrastructure 
is crumbling, there are few to no public transportation systems, and
the options you have of travelling inter city is car, bus or plane.
He just decided to take some of that surplus and make some long overdue
infrastructure improvements.

>>>Close to home, when the government creates an economically empowered class,
>>>and that group advances at the expense of all others, do we call time out
>>>and say, well they EARNED it, and proceed to protect their god given right
>>>not only to the accumulated wealth but to the system of empowerment?
>
>>No, out of context it sounds like that (in fact it sounds pretty funny
>>out of context), but it isn't.  I said 2 or 3 times in the post that
>>the current system is wrong and needs to be changed to be more just
>>(higher taxes on the upper income groups, less rich-only loopholes,
>>and so on). 
>
>How in the world can you say that it is in ANY sense "fair" for the upper
>income groups to pay even more taxes?  They already pay a tremendous amount,
>MUCH more than their fair share.  What kind of cockeyed definition of
>"justice" are you you using anyway?

In dollar amounts, it may seem so, but in impact on standard of living, it
is not so.  30% from 100,000 dollars makes little impact that 15% of 10000
dollars does on the respective standard of living.  THAT is the "pain"
I talk about when I say to "share the pain."


>>What I was trying to convey above was that we have no right to brand those that
>>made out like bandits in the 80's criminals if they played by the rules.  Those
>>rules need to be changed to give everyone a better shot at wealth, not just
>>those that already have it.
>
>Just what kinds of "banditry" are you talking about and what percentage of
>"the rich" do you think engaged in such activities?

Boy, you see one word and you go off.  Read both sentances please.

>
>The single biggest "rule" that keeps the lower classes from becoming
>business owners is the high rate of taxation and business regulation which
>keeps the entry costs associated with starting a business so high that
>very few people ever find themselves in a position to raise enough money 
>to start a business.  You can't fix that kind of situation with employer-paid
>medical insurance laws, "family leave" laws, etc.

Fine, de-regulate them.  I DONT CARE.  I am not a Democrat and certainly
do not agree with every tidbit of sentances falling from either politicians
mouth.

I suggest you write Bill Clinton and voice your concerns.

-- 
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         |These opinions are the opinions of the majority of |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | space aliens currently in residence in the USA.   |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.penpals