Re: Tax
Thu, 5 Feb 1998 05:42:36 -0500

James Rogers wrote:

> [...] why not have a NCT to motivate the lower income people to better their

The "trickle down" Reaganomics theory for less progressive taxes has already
failed once. See for a cogent
discussion on the effects of the "trickle down" theory. Wealth simply
gravitated towards the upper eschelons of American society. The theory of
"trickle down" economics is that it would help the lower and middle class by
creating benefits that would "trickle down" to them from the upper class (who
would reap benefits from lower taxes). The exact opposite occurred.
Ironically, the deficit ballooned and the monies that the wealthy saved in
taxes they then in part loaned to the American government in the form of
treasury bonds to fund the deficit created by the tax savings. Ironic.

> This "tax the rich" meme is destructive to the lower economic classes in the
long run.

On what basis do you make this statement? Please refer to for a good discussion of how
"trickle down" resulted in real dollar decreases in the incomes of the lowest
60% of American society. During the 1960s when the tax system was decidely
progressive (with the highest marginal tax rate exceeding 70%) all portions of
American society experiencd real wage growth. And what about countries such as
Switzerland and Sweden that have very high marginal tax rates? They some of
the highest income per capita figures in the world and they're lowest quintiles
of society are not suffering or being "destroyed".

> I am one of those people who makes more than $100k, but I worked and
invested to make every penny.

I also make in excess of $100k annually. However, you good fortune and mine is
a result of the capitalist system in America. Is it untenable to be expected
to pay back some of the rewards we have wrought? How much money would we be
making if the lower and middle class were not there to work and consume? I
doubt it. Furthermore, (and these are questions of personal opinion), is it
unreasonable that the ones who reap the most from the American system pay a
higher portion (though still retaining ample amounts unto themselves) in return
for that opportunity? I say no. If the tax system was such a dire spectre
then people would not make money, people would not take risk... but they do.
Why? Because despite the tax system there is still significant rewards to be
wrought from taking risk. The rewards are still there. Taxing them is not
unfair. But hording your gains to the detriment of the system that gave you
the opportunity to reap them is, in my opinion, unscrupulous.

> It is government of the parasites, by the parasites, for the parasites. I
would rather opt out, thank you.

Monaco has no income tax. Perhaps you should try there. I suppose you also
think philanthropy is complete nonsense. Rockefeller giving his money away for
the benefit of the "parasites", Gates funding the installation of Internet
access in Alabama libraries, and other such nonsense?

I find it extremely ironic that on a list that looks to the future (where the
concepts of sharing information and resources is generally viewed as optimal)
that the spectre of individual greed rears its ugly head.

Doug Bailey