Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8sbok35of4f4k33vhrb3ovvhglmhffrp8j@xxxxxxxxxx
"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Every party wishing to garner enough votes to make it into power needs to
portray itself as the party of the people.

It's a matter of definition, really: you look at the party membership and
leadership, others would look at the demographics of the voters. If you
look at the latter, the Democrats are actually correct because their
voters
are, on the whole, poorer, less well educated and tend to be of ethnic
minorities whose share of the nation's wealth is less than average.

Democrats gather the votes of the poor and ignorant, people whose
votes can be bought with the same promises they've heard for the last
40 or 50 years, and the <irony alert> "wealthiest 1%", a/k/a the
"elite".

Call me a cynic, but I operate on the assumption that the electorate as a
whole is pig-ignorant (and suspect I'm insulting the intelligence of pigs by
making the comparison).

Like in most other areas, people can be moved by appealing to fear and
greed. On that basis, I find it hard to whip up enthusiasm for the notion
that promising to empty the wallets of a few perceived fat cats is somehow
worse than raising fears of tidal waves of immigrants or godless gay
commies. Sorry.


Anyway, I rather doubt that he is concerned with Joe of Joe's Garage;
neither am I. That is a going concern, working money, and not on the
scale
I am thinking of. Rather, think of the dotcom nerd who cashed out back in
'99 with a billion or two in his bank account, or the fifth-generation
east
coast trust-fund heir with a Dutch name.

You're thinking like a Democrat. That's how we wind up in trouble.

You overrate my influence...
:-)


They hold up people like the ones in your example as "justification"
for government confiscation of assets, but their policies always wind
up hurting people like in my example.

That, alas, is the end result of most government work.






What's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. The prevailing Dem
reasoning is what's mine is mine, I earned it, but you earned yours on
the backs of the poor, "oiled with the blood of the workers", it
actually belongs "Society" (a/k/a the Feds) and must be returned to
them on request.

In any system, the main burden of all taxation falls on the poor and the
middle classes; truly rich folk know how to protect their money. I don't
think this is party-specific.

This is 100% bull***, Alex, an urban myth that refuses to die because
it is so useful.

The facts are:
96.7% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of earners
84.6% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 25%
36.89% of federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%

Hence my use pf the phrase "all taxation".

Sales taxes as a percentage of overall expenditure increases the less you
earn, hitting the poorest people the hardest. Inheritance tax doesn't hit
the poor because they have nothing to tax or the rich because they have some
pretty nifty loopholes, it hits the middle classes hardest. Ditto all
taxation on savings and investments -- poor folks don't have any, and rich
folks have ways and means of structuring their affairs to largely avoid such
taxation.




Specifics aside, I would not agree that what's mine belongs to society and
needs to be returned on request.

However, I do believe that our society provides the framework for the
accumulation of wealth. Without the roads and infrastructure, the laws,
the
predictability and reliability of government, and especially without the
enforcement of property and other civil rights through the support of both
state and our fellow citizens, it would not be possible for any of us to
create the wealth in the first place. Look at any country where the
political and social eonvironment is not so benign: there, all that
happens
is the theft of wealth from everybody else to benefit a very small group
whose only qualification is membership of the ruling elite. Does this not
deserve some recompense?

They receive recompense far in excess of the cost. See the above FACTS
on who pays what.

See my above comment on all vs. income taxation.

In general terms, I do believe you should also take into account that even
though the business owner may pay more tax, he also benefits more if he has
educated staff who add value to his business. Where would his business be
without roads and other means of travel to allow him to shift his goods? If
he has to go to court to force tardy debtors to pay up, what value is that
to the company he created? In Russia today, it is a popular wheeze by local
criminals to fake up some documents purporting to prove that Ivan sold his
little business to them, have it rubber-stamped by a corrupt official and
then turn up at the door with the police to throw Ivan off what he thought
until that morning was his own property. What is the value of that *not*
happening in the US (or UK)?




To argue another way: yes, my money is my money and I should be able to do
with it as I see fit. But from the perspective of my heirs, the money
coming is not earned. They have done nothing for it. Theirs is a stroke
of
luck based purely on an accident of birth; they simply profit from the
hard
work of their parents. They haven't even bought a lottery ticket. Is
that
just and equitable?

Yes, if those are the wishes of those who created and earned the
wealth in the first place.

That is where we differ. I cannot believe that a mere accident of birth
should be justification enough for unearned fortune. In the same way, I
would rather expect my brother to share his good fortune with his family if
he wins the lottery on Saturday, if only by way of a gesture of a nice watch
or the best caviar dinner in town.



.