From: Mark Grant (mark@unicorn.com)
Date: Thu Sep 11 1997 - 13:55:43 MDT
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Holly Pearson wrote:
> Me: Yes, that public share you speak of is that small minority who
> has in one way or another scored it big over the last 10 years. The
> remaining vast majority have no share in it.
Indeed; as the government increases taxation to funnel our hard-earned
money to its employees and friends, that small minority gets rich and we
get poor.
> Me: Absolutely not. That's why most families need 2 breadwinners
> now..
If I add all my tax payments together, about 50% of my income goes to the
government in one form or another. Were I living with my girlfriend then
her after-tax income would pay about 2/3 of my tax bill or, in other
words, she'd be working the entire year as a government slave simply to
pay taxes. Since government 'services' typically cost more than twice as
much as private services, if we were to eliminate the government
altogether she could quit work. *This* is why families today require two
wage-earners rather than one.
> But what about the
> rest of the country who have kids to raise, let alone having even touched
> a computer?
Now tell me; what exactly are people doing having children they can't
afford to pay for? Why should I be expected to pay for their kids when
I've chosen to save money by staying childless?
> Most people hate their jobs - they do it because they have to
> survive.
Personally I work long hours out of compassion; in a few years I should be
able to cash in my stock options and retire as a multi-millionaire, thereby
freeing up my job and my girlfriend's for the deserving poor.
> Again, I'm glad you have the luxury, high IQ and skills to
> design your own flex-schedule - most do not have that option. Where have
> you been?
Where were they when I was at school working hard? Slacking off? Joking
with their friends rather than learning skills? Why should I feel sorry
for them? Why should those of us who chose to live our lives in a
responsible manner have to support those who didn't?
> Me: Tell that to the people who have been automated out of a job.
> All I'm asking is for you to tell me what people of average IQ, little
> money and little skill are going to do when the majority of the economy has
> been automated?
Get off their butts and learn some skills? Work to eliminate the minimum
wage and restrictive employment laws which keep many of them out of work?
Why is it that the poor in the backward asian countries I've visited are
full of entrepeneurial spirit while those in the West just sit around
waiting for 'Big Mummy' to make things better? Sure, there are people who
are physically unable to ever hold a job, but they're a special case who
can be helped by charities.
I come from a poor working class family of six kids; I had no benefits
that my contemporaries didn't, except parents who encouraged me to learn
and work hard. Yet I was educated at one of the best universities in the
country, I've travelled all over the world, achieved many of my ambitions,
and should be able to retire at 35. Could there be some connection here;
those who work hard do well and those who slack off don't?
> After all, we can't have 80%+ of the population lying
> around watching TV, having sex and smoking pot, can we? They must all
> work, work, work! 'Get to work wage slaves!' - is all I have been hearing
> these days.
Uh, you're the one complaining about lack of work... I don't care in the
least about people who choose to waste their lives as long as they don't
expect me to pay for them. How much exactly does rent, a used TV and a big
wad of pot cost these days? How many hours do you have to work as a temp to
pay for that? Couple of days a week?
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:52 MST