Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
From: dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Re: Unemployment shifting
Message-ID: <1323@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 11:51:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: drutx.1323
Posted: Tue Sep 16 11:51:51 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Sep-86 07:25:09 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 60

[]

>In article <1291@drutx.UUCP>, dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes:
>> Since government produces no wealth of its own, what wealth it has comes
>> from the private sector via taxes.
>> 
>> Suppose it requires 1 unit of wealth to provide/maintain 1 job.  So, for
>> 10 jobs it would require 10 units -- not 9, not 9.826, but 10.  Let's
>> say that XYZ Widget Company produces 10 units for 10 jobs.  To provide 1
>> government job, government takes 1 unit as a tax from XYZ, and sure enough
>> 1 government job is "created" (BTW, this is an at-best scenario, since for
>> this to happen, government would have to be 100% efficient).  Oh but wait,
>> XYZ now has only 9 units -- 1 less unit for 1 less job.  "Sorry buddy.  I
>> can no longer afford to pay for 10 jobs, only 9.  You're out!"

>   Assume for the sake of argument that there are, say, 150 million tax paying
>entities in the US.  Assume further that some 500,000 of them are "corporate"
>entities
>Let us further assume that the US government determines that it is desireable
>to generate 500,000 juobs (most probably training postions).

If it requires wealth to provide/maintain a job, then taking away that
wealth (say, through taxes) will destroy that job.  Since government
generates no wealth of its own, if it were to generate 500,000 jobs, it
could only do it by destroying AT LEAST 500,000 OTHER jobs (to provide
the cost of the jobs + the cost of the bureaucracy).

>Each taxed 
>entity will be paying 1/30 of the real cost of providing these jobs.  Thus,
>at *MOST*, XYZ Widget Co. pays 1/30 of one unit.  

So what?  If each entity provides 1/30 of the cost of 1 job, then 30 of
them will provide for 1 job.  Right?  That still means that out of those
30, 1 job will have been lost for each job "created" by government.  If
not them directly, then it will be someone else who is connected.  Somebody
*will* lose in the process.

>   The 'libertarian' also conveniently ignores that possibility that such a
>jobs program does not necessarily have to result in an increase in taxation.
>[ some stuff about cutting defense spending ]
>But 'libertarians' don't want to
>discuss this point, because then they can only fall back on their BS argument
>that any form of taxation is thievery.

I'll discuss it.  You are spouting nonsense.  First of all, that taxation
= thievery is not the issue.  Secondly, no matter what government spends
the money on, taxing the wealth away destroys jobs in the private sector.
If X jobs were destroyed from a tax policy that funded one program in the
first place, even if you were 100% efficient, you will not get those same
X jobs + 1 by using that money to fund a jobs program instead.  If Y jobs
are funded instead, you merely shift unemployment around.  At best, you
gain nothing.

>tom keller

David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo

"Government is that fiction by which people believe they can live at
someone else's expense."  -- Frederic Bastiat