Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: State Tax Dedudction
Message-ID: <573@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 12:23:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.573
Posted: Thu Jun  6 12:23:03 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 01:15:58 EDT
References: <735@mtuxo.UUCP> <1340148@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 57
Summary: 

In article <1340148@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:
> >/* mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) /  2:04 pm  Jun  3, 1985 */
> 
> >What workable alternative do you propose for providing basic services,
> >such as mutual defense?
> 
> I've done some thinking about this, and it seems a sticky problem.

An understatement.  But honest.

> One possibility is to finance defense thru contributions.  This may
> not seem realistic at first, but it must be looked at in light of
> the fact that in the absence of taxes, most people may be far more
> generous with their money (I hope).

I would sock mine into gold and survivalist preparations, if this came
about.  :-)  Seriously, I think that's a slim hope.  People have not been
significantly more generous with their reduced taxes.  To date, the
largest incentive ever seen for generosity has been direct deductions
from taxes, on the grounds that if you have to lose money, it might as
well be lost to something you want to support (and may get kickbacks of
honor, social connections, etc. from.)

> In addition, I believe it is likely,
> given that the system will be financed by contributions, that there will
> be less waste and fraud because people will have more control over how
> their money is spent.  Also, defense of other countries will not have to
> be financed by Americans, unless they want to finance it.

Will people have more control how their money is spent?  If so, I'm
reminded of the lament of a Cornell U. administrator: "No donor wants
a new steam line named after him."  There are lots of government
expenses that are major but not sexy enough to be contributed to.

As for defense of other countries, what will you have?  Will we donate
to both sides in Nicaragua, because some of us like the contras and
others like the Sandanistas?

And what about the free-market in world domination?  It is the wealth
we can rally for our defense (more than anyone else) that keeps us and
our interests safe and dominating the world.  If we abandon our means of
efficiently channeling wealth into defense, someone else who still uses
those means will be able to outcompete us.

> If such a system doesn't work, we can always go back to the old one.
> In the meantime, the government can finance defense by selling
> its vast holdings (in areas other than defense).

With current defense costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars, how
long do you think the government can finance anything with this non-
renewable source of income?  Frankly, I consider this idea to be part
of the hidden agenda of many groups to buy undervalued government
resources for their own profits (ignoring any benefits to the rest of
us from the current state of those resources.)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh