From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 08:31:50 MDT
201c21b58$a8387720$012179a5@braniac>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Olga Bourlin wrote:
>
> From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> > I've never known a wealthy person to wish more poverty on others...
>
> Olga Bourlin wrote:
> > > They may not wish it ...
>
> > You previously said they did 'wish it'.
>
> I meant in a figurative sense, as when rich people or big businesses lie,
> cheat,
> avoid taxes and exploit their workers (Enron, ImClone, Martha Stewart of
> late - granted, she's only under investigation as of now). Remember Leona
> Helmsley - "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." The
> results, however, are often literal: more poverty for the poor.
A dislike of paying taxes on the part of the rich only translates into
poverty for the poor if the poor have structured their lives in such a
way as to be totally dependent upon continued looting of the assets of
those who are most effective at growing them. It's tantamount to a
hostage taker blaming the negotiator for the death of the hostage.
>
> >>... but "more poverty" happens when you've got a country
> > > (USA) with socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
>
> > How is it, exactly, that we have
> > socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor?
>
> For instance, the poorest workers in the United States are the least likely
> to have medical insurance.
Who all are entirely eligible for real socialized health care: medicare,
medicaid, etc.
>
> Another for instance - corporate welfare. About $100 billion MORE per year
> is given in federal subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that what is
> given to welfare programs for the physically and mentally handicapped, the
> elderly, the blind, the deaf, food stamps and AFDC combined. (In the
> mid-1950s corporations in the USA paid 75 cents for every dollar paid by
> individual taxpayers; in contrast, in the mid-1990s, corporations paid 20
> cents in taxes for every dollar paid by individual taxpayers.)
Once again, since when is allowing a person or corporation to keep more
of their own money a 'subsidy'?
The reduction in corporate taxes is more a matter of the fact that while
individuals pay taxes as a percent of their gross income (i.e. ignoring
their living expenses, etc), corporations only pay taxes on their net
income (i.e. after all costs are accounted for). It is not surprising
that this has occured when inflation has seriously eroded the value of
individual pre-tax deductions, which were originally, ostensibly,
supposed to reflect a somewhat real minimum cost of living much as
corporations can deduct their costs from revinues.
Furthermore, what about the massive subsidy of the lower class through
the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the largest redistribution scheme
ever invented and is kept entirely off the books of the welfare system?
Anybody who makes under $30k with dependents not only pays no taxes
whatsoever, but receives more back from the government, and these
numbers are totally ignored by your stats.
>
> > they may despise the poor for their lack of capability, luck, or
> > opportunism.
>
> >> Despise the poor? ... Many of
> >> America's poor are children - others are simply sick, old, demented,
> >> maimed, the not-too-swift. Whatever happened to compassion (or just
> plain
> >> old
> > noblesse oblige)?
>
> > Having compassion for someone's bad breaks or circumstances doesn't mean
> > you can't think less of them for their apparent lack of ability or
> > motivation.
>
> You previously said "they may *despise* the poor for their lack of ..."
Yes I did. WHere, exactly, do you think I somehow changed what I said?
>
> > Just as the abolitionists of the 19th century lobbied for
> > ending slavery while at the same time being scandalized by the idea of
> > interracial marriage, today's allegedly compassionate liberals known as
> > the 'guilty rich' may want to redistribute the wealth, but they don't
> > necessarily think the recipients of noblesse oblige are in any way their
> > equals.
>
> I don't care what today's allegedly compassionate liberals think of anyone
> else. How people feel and think cannot be legislated. What is important is
> that basic medical insurance (to use one example) would benefit many people,
> and that this is something possible to attain.
Basic medical coverage is available to anyone already. Sure, it doesn't
cover acupuncture and offer pillow mints and complimentary massages with
each visit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:59 MST