From: hhuang@athena.mit.edu (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Clinton's character
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:07:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.163141.27287@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:
>In <1992Jul20.203500.21908@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>Democrats prefer the equality of slavery to the inequality of freedom.
>>They presuppose that man can be equal when it is obvious that we are not
>>either mentally or physically.  They are happy to take the property of 
>>the rich but would they, in the name of equality, be willing to put lead
>>weights on Michael Jordan's legs so that I could have an equal opportunity
>>to play in the NBA?  NO - they are hypocrites, only fighting for equality
>>on the surface while hoping inside to cripple the achievers.
>
>Cripple?  Do you see any reason why those who benefit the most from
>our system should not put something back into that system?  If you make
>100K a year, what difference is it going to make if you pay higher taxes?
>You would STILL be making more than a lot of people.

Sure, the wise ones put back by investing and putting their money
where it would do the most good and create the most wealth,
industries, jobs, etc.

>>That people keep the property which they earned is what I consider to
>>be moral.  That you seem to believe that you have a greater claim to this
>>property than they do is awkward.  Did you earn it? No.
>
>You didn't see the point.  Ok, let's not tax anyone.  Now, tell me--who
>is going to pay the government's huge debt?

The fact is that the rich and upper middle class do not have
enough to pay all of the debt.  It comes down to the middle
class.  You've read all the posts on the net, and they convince
me that Democratic plans to soak the rich to pay the deficit are
all hogwash.  The middle class has to pay.

>>Now, do the wealthy have an obligation to pay taxes, yes.  Do they owe 
>>more because of any reason other than you want to use their money? No.
>>I wouldn't want you to be my banker, I might find my account emptied
>>because you had a need that you deemed sufficient to take my property.
>
>Right.
>
>The point is not that the needy should steal from the rich (and since
>that's your implicit assumption, I can't see that I'm likely to get
>through your thick head, but I'll try).  The point is that the rich
>should give back to society some of what they get, when in fact many
>find every possible way to evade taxes and dodge taxes left and right.

"Society" is not something anybody is beholden to.  An individual
lives for him/herself, earns and trades as s/he pleases, and
ideally should owe nothing to anybody.  The individual can never
be subverted to the state, and justly acquired property cannot be
confiscated for any political means, whether it be for "fairness"
or just a plain dirty tax.  Is this not what liberalism says?

>Of course, poor and undereducated people don't have the resources at
>their disposal to maximize their income and minimize their taxes--if
>you can't put food on the table, you sure can't pay a tax preparer to
>make sure you don't pay any more taxes than you have to.

If we have a flat tax with no loopholes, then there would be zero
tax helpers.  Zero.  And most of the tax collectors and helpers
would then find other jobs.  I consider that to even be a boon to
the economy.

>So the poor and undereducated pay "more" taxes than the rich--is this
>any more fair than taxing the priveledged at a higher rate?

They do not pay more.

>Personally, I don't think taxes should be anyway.  For anyone.  But
>you seem to be arguing that those with money have earned that money
>(what about inheritances?) by hard work, and they "deserve" that money
>more than the poor people (who work pretty damn hard themselves, they
>just haven't had the breaks).  This is ludicrous.  Our system favors the
>rich--that's how many of them got to be that way.

Our system favors the rich because our system is suspectible to
the powerful acquiring political pull and being able to
manipulate the system to their own ends.  In a fair system,
however, such things would not happen, and every individual
stands on his/her merits.  However, a staggered tax code is not a
fair system by any means of the imagination.

>>There is a seemingly infinite number of good ideas which the government
>>might be best suited to accomplish.  Which of these do we need and why
>>do they always require a great deal of money?  
>
>If good ideas don't require a great deal of money, then why to the rich
>need to hold on to theirs in order to keep the economy going?

Why should the rich be forced to pay any more than any other
group in America?

And while we are at it, how is all this talk about the rich
anything except classist.

Liberalism has been shrill regarding the evil of classism these
days.  It's because they do so much of it themselves these days. 

>-- 
>Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
>               The animal that coils in a circle is the serpent;
>   that's why so many cults and myths of the serpent exist, because it's hard
>      to represent the return of the sun by the coiling of a hippopotamus.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:392 alt.politics.bush:78 alt.politics.elections:8968