NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/can/general/6482

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 5.0 KB

Xref: sparky can.general:6482 can.politics:11795 soc.culture.canada:10558
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watserv1!mks.com!chris
From: [e-mail] (Chris Retterath)
Subject: Re: Communist Progressive Tax System (was Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:32:43 GMT
Lines: 83

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Till) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John LaRocque) writes:
>>A graduated income tax goes against the very principal of equality. Here
>>is an example of an ideal tax system (if there ever were one).
>>
>>Neil earns $300 dollars, Bob earns $600 dollars. Fairness demands that the
>>state not interfere with Bob's paycheque simply because he earns more.
>
>Yes, but how did Bob earn his money?
>
>Did he earn the extra $300 because he hoarded a scarce resource, and forced
>people to buy it at the price he set?  (Read "Ten Lost Years" by Barry
>Broadfoot or "The Depression" by Pierre Berton to learn what can happen
>when a free-market economy goes haywire.)

Hi Dave! Sorry, I disagree absolutely with this argument of yours.
First, prices reflect the *demand* and the *supply* for a commoditity.
If the demand goes up or the supply goes down, then the price has to rise
to reflect the new value. If they didn't people would misallocate resources.
Artificially low prices (like 'anti-profiteering' laws) cause the resource
to be wasted (there is no signal to the user that things are more valuable),
and prevent people from entering the market with substitutes or new supplies.
Proof: just look at the (former) USSR.

The real villians are the gov'ts that we elect that keep prices high
with monopolies and price controls and restrictive market laws.
And have to steal (tax) from us to support these restrictive practices that
make us all worse off!

>This is your first error in reasoning:  you are assuming that reward is
>strictly a function of effort.  This is not true:  reward is a function
>of effort, opportunity, and luck.  Only one of these three (effort) is
>controllable by an individual human being.

But the alternative is to keep us all uniformly poor. I'll take a system
that at least rewards initiative, thank you. And opportunity can be altered
as well.. you have to be willing to move to where the jobs are.

>This is your second error in reasoning:  you are assuming that taking money
>away from Bob is "punishing" him.  Don't forget, it is in Bob's interest
>to ensure that no one starves to death and that every child has the
>educational opportunities he or she needs.  At the very least, Bob will
>sleep more soundly at night knowing that his tax dollars are preventing
>suffering.  At best, one of these people whom Bob is supporting today
>might come up with a cure for cancer, or produce a beautiful work of art
>which Bob can enjoy in his old age.

If Bob agrees to fund these things, that is his business. In fact, people
have always funded charities and hospitals and other worthwhile social
institutions. With the current system, the gov't middlemen take a large
cut, then, the targets tend to be poorly defined (funding people who
really *do not* need help), and finally (and most important), a feeling
that everything is the gov'ts responsibility, and the people don't need
to help as individuals anymore.

>And here is the crux of my argument:  what, exactly, constitutes "poor"?
>The way I see it, a society is wealthy not when a few of its luckier members
>are building luxurious houses while its less fortunate members sleep in
>the street:  a wealthy society ("wealthy" in the larger sense of the word)
>gives everybody the opportunity to do what he or she does best, and ensures
>that no one is deprived of this opportunity.  This is what small-l liberalism
>is all about.  (Yes!  My true colours revealed at last!  I am one of *them*!
>To the battlements!)

Well, you're about as far from small l liberalism as you can be...
A sad comment on how that old idea, Liberal, has been perverted in this
country. What you've described yourself as is a socialist.
You don't believe in the market and you believe in gov't intervention.

>>When I make MY first
>>million, it will be in a country where they do not punish success.
>
>I take it you've gotten your U.S. green card, have you?  Don't slam the door
>on your way out.

This wasn't directed at me by Dave, but I've had the same response when
I've said similiar things in the past. I consider this very insulting,
suggesting that people leave the country because they disagree with socialists.
Thanks, I'll stay and I hope John stays, and hopefully we can change this
country into something better.


    Chris Retterath