Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A flat tax is too progressive (was Jerry's Tax)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Apr 92 08:59:29 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Apr6.042437.29349@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Apr5.044848.15343@anasaz> john@anasaz (John Moore) writes:
>>
>>And your argument seems to presume that the stuff that these folks have just
>>magically was bestowed upon them, when in fact it was usually hard work
>>that made the money. It also presumes that owning property is a priviledge,
>>when this country was founded on the idea that owning property was a natural
>>right. Furthermore it presumes to determine who "deserves" something -
>>always dangerous!
> 
> Assuming the right to own property, is denying another's opportunity
> to own property correct?  

	Owning property does not prevent others from owning property, it merely
prevents them from owning _that specific_ property (unless you want to sell :).

> Locke had superb ideas, but he himself admitted
> that there would be problems with property passed down to you by your
> forbearers.  Since you must have inheritance (else there'd be little
> motive to accumulate property), doesn't a rich heir gain disproportiate
> power?  

	No.  1) We have inheritence taxes for just that purpose, 2) Ownership
of property is not a zero-sum game, and 3) Without the incentive (of being able
to pass on possessions), most people will not take care of their property with
the same degree of responsibility.

> Can't he use this power to deny others their rights?

	Not unless society lets him/her.

> Do the present Rockefellers or Gettys work hard to make all their money?

	At least one of them did :).  It's *hard* to keep a fortune.  With
taxes, expenses, etc. you have to continually earn more than the rate of
inflation + expenses on your investments to keep ahead.

> Didn't they start off with far more advantages than, say, a kid in
> a ghetto, or you and I?
> 

	Of course, but that doesn't make it any more wrong that the person
gifted with strength or speed or intelligence.

>>...
>>And, perhaps surprisingly to you, I don't disagree with goals 1 and 3.
>>I do, however, have a strong opinion that property rights are fundamental
>>to civil rights (thanks,  Friedrich Hyek), and that messing around with
>>them to achieve social goals is the road to tyranny.
> 
> Isn't it spelled Hayek?  I don't remember.  Anyway, I feel that
> a purely Lockean notion of property rights only leads to perpetual
> misery for the underprivilaged.

	There will always be and "underprivilaged" class, even if the
definition of that class are those with only one house :).  What we, as a
society need to do is ensure that for those who want a better life, the
opportunities are there.

Brett
===============================================================================
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                            CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:18461 talk.politics.mideast:10936 soc.misc:587 misc.headlines:3460