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
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:23:14 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <BxGK7G.125@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>>>>Actually, one could say the same thing about the Republican Administrations
>>>>by switching the words "the rich" and "the poor."  The rest sounds just
>>>>like what criticism of the Reps did.
>>>
>>>On the contrary, buying the votes of the rich doesn't get you much in an
>>>election, since there are not very many rich people.  Furthermore, there is 
>>>a BIG difference between allowing people to keep the money THEY earned and 
>>>forcing people to cough up money for transfer to others who DIDN'T EARN it.
>>>It's the difference between me spending MY dollan and me spending YOUR dollar.
>>>Get it?
>>
>>  Please define this concept of 'EARN' in a fashion that is independent of
>>the social-politcal-economic system within which it is assigned, measured,
>>transferred, and protected and then we can discuss what is an appropriate
>>type of governmental levying and allocation of such 'earnings' in the
>>abstract and absolute way in which you seem to want to frame the issue.
>
>Huh?  Do you mean in terms of that antiquated, incorrect "dielectical
>materialism" so popular in those stagnant Communist Regimes, which by
>any yardstick failed to function socially *or* economically.

  Ahh, the old tried and true argument by association rather than fact or
logic. That's getting pretty antiquated itself but it's a golden oldie
of the slander-inclined.

>
>IN basic psychology (if you don't want an economic argument - which i suspect
>would be wasted on you, not really understanding supply and demand and all),
>if you TAKE something from someone and give it to someone else, no matter
>how you idealogically dress it up, it feels like theft to the person you took it
>from (at least after a certain point), and the person you give it to in thoise
>same idealogically structured justification, will then feel like it is 'owed'
>to them for some abstract reason.

  All this presumes that the so-called earning was a form of property that
was wholly belonging to the recipient. There are arguments to be made that
the sum total of ones compensation, in all forms, are a product of the economic
system and policies not merely of the transaction occuring between the two
parties. That is, the state is a participant in the transaction and not
merely in the role of 'confiscator' (as taxes). In fact, it has a role in
setting the terms, conditions, guarantees, and influences the rates and
forms of exchange. That makes the concept of what is 'earned', as opposed
to merely what is exchanged rather less well defined.

>
>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).

  Well, you can apply whatever words you choose, I suppose. You must be a
disciple of Lewis Carroll. But if you're going to contribute to a rational
discussion rather than just wave the bloody shirt of taxation you have to
go beyond the labelling to the principles.

>
>>>
>>>>IMNSHO, the "trickle-down" theory allowed the upper few percent to gain
>>>>about 60% of the income growth throughout the 80's.  
>>>
>>>Indeed, they were alolowed to MAKE that money.  They didn't steal it.
>>>Would like to see the government forbit people from making money?  Do you think
>>>that anything other than poverty could result from the government outlawing 
>>>economic productivity among the most able segment of the population?
>>
>>  On the contrary, many were able to accumulate wealth, that lead to 
>>further wealth and growth of that wealth, under a system that favored
>>and supported that activity. A different system might not have. Neither
>>their efforts nor their 'goodness' are/were sufficient to achieve it
>>themselves. Some of those methods are fair, some are foul, some are
>>weghted in their favor and to the detriment of others. Presuming the
>>activities and accounting are legal, the accumulation of the wealth
>>was also, but is not the same as fair, just, or self-generated.
>>
>>
>Those were the rules, so they DID EARN the money.  I just suggested that
>perhaps the rules might be changed (taxes included) because the government
>was favoring the 'elite.'  I am not saying that any great disservice was done,
>just that trickle down failed to perform and create the environment that 
>the Reps wanted : a wealthier population as a whole.

  There you go again with your definition of earn. If you mean accumulated
by legal means, I'll concede the meaning, but I won't concede the issue of
fairness, justice, or ethics based upon such a characterizxation.

>>
>>>>By that reasoning,
>>>>it it justifiable to tax them more (tax where the least pain and most
>>>>gain as a society) than those without $$$.  
>>>
>>>What "reasoning"?  It is THEIR MONEY.  THEY EARNED IT.  You seem to think
>>>that the government took money away from poor people and deposited it into
>>>the accounts of rich people.  If anything, the rich have been paying 
>>>much more than everyone else for a long long time, and it is about time
>>>that everyone pay them back for this injustice.  I don't advocate that myself,
>>>but it is much more consistent with your stated principle than increasing
>>>the taxes on them.
>
>No, not at all.  Please refrain from overlaying your concepts on mine.  I am
>very free market oriented, but dislike hypocricy.  The hyp. I am talking about
>is the tax system that allows the wealthy to pay a lower percentage of their 
>taxes than the lower.  The purpose of graduated income tax is to tax those that 
>have money more (share the pain).  The whole purpose of allowing the rich
>to EARN that money is that their increased purchasing power would enrich all
>the income brackets through 'trickle down' (increased spending).  It did not
>work, so it is justified to try something else.  I agree that their EARNED
>INCOME is EARNED, however, taxes are not thefts.  And we KNOW transfer payments
>don't work too well, so (I hope) that Clinton follows up on his plan and tries
>to implement another system.  
>
>I am not saying that "I am rich because you are poor"  Not at all, I feel however,
>that another system of enriching everyone needs to be tried.  I see no justice
>or injustice at all.  Geez.  Don't put words inb my mouth! (keyboard? :) )

  You also seem to have trouble keeping your respondents straight since you
have mixed the comments of several, without any attribution.

>
>>  There you go again with this absolutist concept of 'earning' that is
>>independent of the system within which it is collected and measured. One
>>could also make arguments that they are more dependent upon the system
>>than the 'poor' and therefore owe it more. After all, how much of a
>>society does one require to sucessfully sustain ones poverty ?
>>
>
>Oh shut up!  You sound like some Ex-Communist trying to form theories about
>dielectical materialism.

  Oh, brilliant, well-constructed, intellectual retort. Typical response
of the argument-impaired.

>
>>>
>>>>[For a scary example where this did not happen was France, pre-Revolution,
>>>>where the nobles owned 95% of the wealth, yet paid no taxes, while the
>>>>peasantry and commoners taxes *started* at 60%.  You need to tax where the
>>>>money is, plain and simple]
>>>
>>>And in the US the money is in the middle class.  The situation in France 
>>>was much different in several respects, not the least of which was a legal
>>>system that didn't allow commoners the freedom to produce wealth freely
>>>and trade freely.  Focusing in on the the fact that there was a big difference
>>>in wealth between the rich and poor gets you nowhere.  The important question
>>>is WHY was this the case.  Look at it this way, for hundreds of years before 
>>>the revolution, the King owned 100% of the wealth (which he shared sparingly
>>>with his vassals).  Why didn't they rise up and revolt 100 years earlier?
>>
>>  Because the social structure and its underpinnings and institutions,
>>including the church, did not favor the questioning of authority and
>>the equality of human beings that was necessary for a revolution of the
>>mind that was necessary before a revolution of the body-politic was
>>possible.
>
>Wherte do you get this whacky stuff!
>:)

   History. But I suppose I should just conjure it up like you.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:8332 alt.politics.clinton:16320 alt.politics.bush:13462 alt.politics.perot:5294 talk.politics.misc:58765