Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site wxlvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!slack
From: slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.taxes
Subject: Re: Abuse of social contracts. (tax system)
Message-ID: <406@wxlvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 14:54:19 EST
Article-I.D.: wxlvax.406
Posted: Wed Feb 20 14:54:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 04:36:35 EST
References: <2748@dartvax.UUCP> <445@ahuta.UUCP> <399@lsuc.UUCP> <110@styx.UUCP> <319@mhuxm.UUCP>
Organization: ITT-ATC SRD, Shelton Ct.
Lines: 29
Xref: watmath net.legal:1437 net.taxes:709

> > I think there is even economic justification for a "regressive"
> > tax, e.g. 20% on the first $15,000, 15% on the next $30,000,
> > etc., on the grounds that higher-income people simply don't
> > consume government services at a linearly-proportional rate.
> > Does a person earning $100,000/yr consume FIVE TIMES as much
> > tax-supported public services (police/fire/school/defense/
> > environment/etc.) than a person earning $20,000? No way. Yet he
> > will pay (without cheating or abusive shelters) more than five
> > times as much tax.
> > 
> Consider the arguement that the person making 5 times as much income has
> 5 times as much to loose if his house burnt down (no fire department), if he
> was robbed (no police), or if the country was overtaken by a foreign power
> (no defense).  Besides, taking your arguement to an extreme, we would have to
> abolish all public welfare/service programs, since the family getting $10K/year
> in public assistance "owes" that much to the governmnet.

A person who recieves a transfer payment from with out creating a good does
in reality owe that money to those that the transfer came from.
It is really taxpayers money, property that they owned that was taken away
and given to the people on welfare.  Economic justification does not mean policy.
We must weigh all factors when deciding what to do with public funds.
But do not loose sight of the basic concept that tax money (for whatever
purpose the goverment uses it for) is our money.
It is not magically created by the FED, it is earned.  There is no free lunch.

I however agree that regressive taxes are particularly bad.
When can we get rid of Social Security.
Tom Slack