mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (02/22/84)
I received personal mail this morning in response to a previous posting in which I mentioned what I thought was obvious to anyone who's bothered to look: that Ronald Reagan has engineered a reverse transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. His tools have been primarily the tax system, aided by increases in military spending (which, economically, are simply subsidies to highly capital-intensive businesses -- i.e. few workers benefit from increases in military spending, but capitalists profit nicely) and large-scale cuts in numerous social programs. The net effect, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, which bases its figures on the Economic Report of the President and reports from the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, is that the Reagan "tax cut" increased taxes 30.2% (an average of $134/year) for people with incomes under $10,000 and decreased taxes 15.7% (an average of $20,287/year) for people with incomes over $200,000; the break-even point is about $30,000/year (i.e. these people saw their net taxes neither increase nor decrease due to Reagan policies). The note I received was from a man who was incensed that I thought that taking less from the rich constituted a transfer of wealth. That got me thinking about what determines what belongs to whom. To me, all that determines that is state policy. In other words, there is no private property unless the state decides that there is private property. The state does not taketh; it giveth. This no doubt makes Libertarians stand and scream. But consider a factory owner. Why does HE own the product of that factory, produced by the labor of hundreds of workers? Simple: because the state conspires with him to prevent anyone from taking it. It conspires by (until fairly recently) making it illegal for workers to organize for higher wages or better working conditions. It conspired by sending the army (yes, it happened here in the good 'ol US of A) to kill workers who tried to organize. It conspires by, more recently, letting him break contracts with his workers if he has financial trouble. So the "this is mine and the state is extorting it from me" attitude makes me laugh. Try and hold on to it if the state weren't around to protect you from rioting workers. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
keller@uicsl.UUCP (02/25/84)
#R:tty3b:-30900:uicsl:16300052:000:1056
uicsl!keller Feb 24 13:09:00 1984
In the beginning all was void.
And then there came the WORKER, but there was still much darkness.
And then a light began to glow and it grew brighter and brighter.
And soon the light became blinding and those that turned to face it
knew death.
But the WORKERS enjoyed the warmth and came to crave more and more.
"Let us control its means of production," they said, "for then we will make it
REALLY BRIGHT!"
However, GOD hadn't let them in on the secret of LIGHT, so they were puzzled.
First they tried chanting, "We are SOMEBODY!" but nothing happened.
Then they tried 5 year plans, and got really puzzled.
Finally, after wandering around in the dark, for the light had gone out by
then, they found themselves with a new leader.
The new leader said, "Work harder! Absenteeism will be severly punished!"
So they threw themselves into it and were consumed.
THE END.
-Shaun (Why don't we have more fun? Where is Jimmy Hoffa? Oh, I'm a WORKER
and that's OK. I sleep all night and I WORK all day. You can take
this entry and shove it.)graham@parsec.UUCP (02/26/84)
#R:tty3b:-30900:parsec:40500018:000:459
parsec!graham Feb 25 12:18:00 1984
Where would all the poor, downtrodden workers be if the man who had the
imagination and initiative (the OWNER) to create the factory had not done
so? Is it his duty to take that risk (not all new enterprises succeed, you
know)? Isn't he entitled to some reward for his efforts?
Marv Graham; ConVex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!parsec!graham O: (214)669-3700
PS: Is this the Mike Kelly who once worked on the Illiac IV project at U of I?bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/09/84)
>The net effect, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, >...is that the Reagan "tax cut" increased taxes 30.2% (an average >of $134/year) for people with incomes under $10,000... Would you please elaborate, Mike? The federal income tax went down for all brackets, according to my understanding, so how is this "net effect" calculated? Is it the result of higher state taxes? Higher Social Security taxes (that law was passed before Reagan took office, I believe)? Even if you count these things, how are they the result of the Reagan tax cut? Is your claim that there has been a reverse transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich based only on increases in military spending? Sure, I'll agree that those with high incomes (as opposed to those rich who pay few taxes) are better off paying lower income taxes -- I won't agree that this constitutes a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Is that what you've been trying to claim? >That got me thinking about what determines what belongs to whom. >To me, all that determines that is state policy. In other words, >there is no private property unless the state decides that there is >private property. This seems logical, but it doesn't seem to say a lot. In essence, if the state is strong enough, it can decide whether there is private property, freedom, or if you'll live until tomorrow. This does not negate the idea of private property. >So the "this is mine and the state is extorting it from me" >attitude makes me laugh. Try and hold on to it if the state >weren't around to protect you from rioting workers. Do you feel that all that you own really should belong to the state? Are you against the concept of private property? If so, do you ever lock your car? How about locking your apartment/house? Sam Hall, UCB