From: emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID...
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:16:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: csusac.1992Apr7.211606.3563
Organization: California State University, Sacramento

In article <1992Apr3.160225.1021@walter.bellcore.com> bobh@twinkie.bellcore.com () writes:
>>I don't disagree that someone has to pay to cover valid expenses incurred
>>by the government.  The government does have a role to play in enforcing
>>the rules of the game, so to speak.  I just can find no rational justification
>>for the idea that the more income you acquire the larger the percentage
>>of taxes you should pay.  I don't see that the person is getting a larger
>>percentage of benefits.  If anything, the benefits probably drop off after
>>awhile.  
>
>Why does everything have to be in terms of investment and payoff? "If I put 

Because these are the only two moral actions involved with money. Either you
invest it, you are paid it -- or you steal it.

>in twice as much as you, I sure as hell had better get twice the benefit.
>1.8 times the benefit just isn't good enough."  

If I'm only going to get 1.8 times the benefit, there is no justification
for my paying more that 1.8 times the cost. Give me one thought-out,
rational reason otherwise.

>
>Social spending isn't supposed to help the rich, it's supposed to keep the
>economy churning so that it doesn't stagnate with the same people always
>monopolizing the top spots.  It may not be working, but I think that's its
>motivation.  It *isn't* fair to the rich *on purpose*.
>

So you expect me to fund programs designed to harm me, to support the idea
that if I get to a "top spot" the government will remove me if I keep
myself there "too long", and to work under a system that is purposefully
unfair to me? Like hell!

>>
>>I think a flat rate on income above a certain level is reasonably
>>fair.
>>
>
>Why is a flat rate so attractive to you?  
>
>It doesn't represent an equal share for footing the bill of govt.  To do
>that everyone would have to pay the same dollar amount.

Not such a bad idea, actually.

>
>It doesn't represent a charge based on benefits received from the govt.  You
>even said that benefits taper off.
>
>It doesn't represent an equal "hardship" on everyone to pay for govt.  13%
>to someone near povery line is a much greater hardship than 13% to a very 
>wealthy person.

All the more reason to work hard and get away from the poverty line and
become a very wealthy person. Economic hardship is like any other form
of pain -- it warns you that you're doing something harmful to yourself.
If you put your hand on a hot stove, it hurts, and so you remove your
hand from the source of pain. FDR, LBJ, et. al., decided that pain was
a bad thing and pumped the country full of novacaine. Now we're starting
to smell the flesh burn.

>
>So how is it "fair."  What do you mean by "fair" anyway?
>
>I certainly understand the feeling "I earned my money, why should I have to 
>give any to the government against my will to help someone *else*."  I think
>it would be great if the rich would willingly help pay for government to 
>uphold the kind of economy that we think will drive technology and lead to 

"The government runs the economy which enables you to be rich, therefore,
the government has the right to run the economy." Interesting circular
logic you've got going there.

>a positive-sum game.  I just don't see that that would happen.  For every
>Andrew Carnegie, there were probably 10 mill or mining town dicatators in
>rural America making people's lives an entrenched living hell with *no* 
>chance to be heard, much less form a competitive company.  

What exactly do you mean by "dictator"? Unless you mean that the people
in question are held there by force, they have the option to leave. You'll
now probably say that there is no place else for them to go, or that they
cant' afford to relocate, or something of that nature. In other words, the
option which the "dictator" offers is superior to any others available to
them -- otherwise, why wouldn't they choose on of the others? What you
want to do is penalize someone because what he offers is better than
anything else, but isn't good enough for your liking.

>
>It makes me wonder whether or not there is *any* system that is both fair
>and stable.

Depends on your definition of fair, and your definiation of stability.