Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The WSJ on Reaganomics
Message-ID: <1224@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Nov-84 18:19:56 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1224
Posted: Mon Nov 26 18:19:56 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Nov-84 22:13:54 EST
References: <22400044@ea.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 29

> Sorry, but there *is* a net cost when the government spends money. Much
> (all?) of that money goes from people who produce (it just about has to) to
> people who *don't* produce, and results in a disincentive to produce *at
> both ends*.
> 
> Sweden is a nice place to look for an example of this at one end - people
> are refusing raises in favor of longer vacations, etc. After all, you can
> go from a salary of ~5K to ~25K with no noticeable increase in income, so
> why not take more time off?
> 
>         <mike

That's something of a non-sequitur, isn't it?  I don't see how you can
go from the incentive-nulling effects of a 95+% tax rate to the notion
that Government spending is a net cost on the economy.  The two ideas
are totally unrelated.

Do you really believe that only *producers* contribute to the economy?
Why does the private sector then include so many people in advertising,
management, entertainment (very highly paid, too), restaurants, etc. etc.
Why do you pick on the civil service as the only anti-productive group
of paid workers?  I think that the reason has to be religious, because
it sure isn't based in logic.

-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt