From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:57:55 GMT

Follow-ups directed away from or.politics and ne.politics.

In article <1992Nov12.081725.12946@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>>>>	While I agree with your basic premise, why does a family with $30K
>>>>	income have 3 kids????

>>>Could be because they want them!  

>>Fine: Why should they be made immune from the consequences of this
>>choice?
>>The discussion is why such a family should be given a tax credit, to
>>protect them from the results of their choice. I see no reason 
>>why they should be.

>  Okay, then why should companies be given tax deductions or credits
>  for:
>    2) taking clients to 3-martini lunches

They don't, as I recall: The deduction was eliminated (for a good 
reason...)

>    4) depreciation

That's the corporate equivilent of a cost-of-living deduction: It 
represents the bare minimum repair/maintaince/upkeep expenses
for real property. Are you also arguing against such deductions
on personal income tax?

>  I know, I know, there is nothing in the constitution that say
>  taxes should be used to influence public policy... Well almost
>  nothing.  Article I gives the Congress the power to levy taxes
>  and pass legislation to promote the General Welfare of the
>  people.  You can easily interpret General Welfare to mean
>  just about anything.  

Actually, the framers of the Constitution were very familiar with
the idea of taxes, as a means to influence society: It was 
certral to their arguments against English taxes, immediately
prior to the Revolution. It's a safe bet that "tax... to promote
the General Welfare" mean exactly this...
 
The real question, however, is why a lower-middle class family
having an large number of children is either something that
benifits society or (for those of us that din't like government
intervention in "family values") why this is even an appropriate
topic for government involvement.

>  And dependent deductions are designed to protect the welfare
>  of the family, an institution that most people in the country,
>  including our dearly departed Veep, feel is extremely important.
>  It has always been felt that a minimum level of income for each
>  person in a family unit should not be taxed so that there is
>  sufficient income to provide for sustenance.

I'm not sure how this relates: The deductions should add up to 
an absolute, bare-minimum, poverty-line cost of living. Given this,
no one would be taxed below such a minimum level of income. At the 
same time, someone with a small income and a large number of children
might be taxed _to_ such a minimum level. I don't see why the
government should alter this conesquence of a family's choice to
have many children.

>  ...It is 
>  surprising that so many people want to support "family values"
>  but are unwilling to provide the poorest families with the
>  level of sustenance needed to survive.  Sigh...

Perhaps many of us support "family values", that _don't_ include
government programs (last time I checked, the government wasn't 
part of my family...) There is no conflict between supporting
"family values" and thinking the government should stay out of
the topic. There is also a great difference between opposing
taxes which drive a family into poverty (as I do) and providing
for the poor, no matter how many children they choose to have.

>  As a feeling, caring human being, I constantly wonder how all
>  of you "only the tough survive" people ever get up and look
>  at yourself in the mirror in the morning.

Because life involves a great deal more than survival, and in
my opinion, causing people to depend on charity or government
programs is equally wrong. 

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc