kissell@flairvax.UUCP (Kevin Kissell) (06/21/84)
(ahem) > 2. As a productive member of society, I very much resent the > government(s) punishing productivity and rewarding non-productivity (or > even bad luck). Do you really believe that the government disapproves of productivity? Do you really believe that those who are wealthiest are the most productive? Kevin D. Kissell Fairchild Research Center Advanced Processor Development uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\ >flairvax!kissell {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/ "Any closing epigram, regardless of truth or wit, grows galling after a number of repetitions"
neal@denelcor.UUCP (06/28/84)
************************************************************************** >> 2. As a productive member of society, I very much resent the >> government(s) punishing productivity and rewarding non-productivity (or >> even bad luck). > >Do you really believe that the government disapproves of productivity? As an organization, rather like a corporation, rather than an individual, it's hard to see how a government can approve or disapprove of anything. As far as their official pronouncements go, of course they approve of productivity. Their official pronouncements seem about as believable as most peoples--especially when their actions belie their words to this degree. As far as the people I know and know of who are involved in this arm of the government, they don't exactly disapprove, the feeling I get from them is more of a kind of resentment. "What right have YOU got to be productive when so many can't be?" >Do you really believe that those who are wealthiest are the most productive? Who said anything about "wealthy"? There is no tax (at least at the federal level) on _wealth_, the tax is on _income_ -- _earned_income_ at that. One way of looking at the income tax is that it keeps anyone from becoming wealthy thereby protecting the power and perquisites of those who were wealthy when the tax was adopted (and their families). >Kevin D. Kissell To further amplify my use of the word "punishment" in my original submission, let me point out that I could be caught dealing quite a large amount of illegal drugs (to choose one example) and get off more lightly than I do for the crime of holding down a job for a year. Besides the personal loss I suffer every year, let me point out another problem that I believe arises from the government's actions in this arena. Many people are bemoaning the lack of productivity of the American people right now believing (as I do) that that is the cause of the problems the American economy is suffering. Why should anyone be productive when the punishment is so severe? In particular, why should anyone who, for one reason or another, is not capable of earning more than the minimum wage bother to be productive at all when it is more profitable (i.e., He can feed his family better.) to collect welfare? I maintain that we have managed to remove the bottom segment of the productive people and sufficiently alienated and dispirited the rest that it's a source of constant amazement that we're not a great deal worse off than we are. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
jaczak@ihuxi.UUCP (06/29/84)
The government is responsible in a large part for the lack of productivity in this country. The government of this country is too large, and paying for this excess through taxes is draining the productivity of the people in many ways. By drawing off so much money in taxes, the government is not leaving enough to be used as capital for new investments (such as in the steel industry). The graduated tax system takes away some of the incentive to make more money (why bust your butt if its all going to Uncle Sam?). Many of the people in the lower income brackets rely on the government for financial help, and this doesn't produce alot of incentive to work. These are all symptoms of the growing control of the people by the government. In this country (or any) productivity comes from the willingness to work, and under a free enterprise system this means a willingness to work for yourself. To make money. To become wealthy. These goals are NOT immoral. To be wealthy means to have control over wealth. This can be money, property, or business capital. In any case it is necessary to have wealth to also have productivity(in an industrial society). The problem in this country is that more and more of this wealth is being transfered to the government (have you looked at the Dept. of Defense's budget lately?). When all the wealth is controlled by the government you have communism, and a short look at any of the communist countries will tell you what that does to productivity. In this country more and more of the capital is found in the hands of people who have no incentive to use it to increase productivity (government people). Also, through the welfare system, more and more of this money is being given to people who are not productive. Sadly, this is not how free enterprise is supposed to work. I don't think that people realize that the current policies of this country lead logically to socialism (and decreased productivity). That is, towards increasing control, by the government, of the means of productivity, money. This is why the Libertarian Party is so important. They see clearly how this country SHOULD be run. It is clear to ME that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are willing or able to cure the ills of this country. Somebody needs to give the people a big shove in the right direction, and soon. We can't pay the bill for Big Defense, Social Security, and the Welfare State forever. Russell Spence ihuxi!jaczak AT&T Technologies Naperville, IL -- -
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/10/84)
<> >From: neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) Wed Jun 27 22:58:02 1984 > Who said anything about "wealthy"? There is no tax (at least at >the federal level) on _wealth_, the tax is on _income_ -- _earned_income_ at that. > Neal Weidenhofer Actually, the tax is on income, period. Capital gains (assets held more than a certain time period and then sold) are taxed at a lower rate. The tax on earned income is limited to a maximum rate, something Johnny Carson and I are grateful for. Neal also auggests that American productivity problems are related to our tax rate and our welfare system, i.e. that people have little reason to produce if it will be taxed away from them, and no one absolutely HAS to work thanks to the welfare system. Considering the recent outburst of entrepreneurism (that started about 6 years ago, so you can't completely credit the Reagan tax cut), this seems unlikely. Moreover, our productivity is not better than, say, Sweden, which has a more "progressive" tax structure (meaning that it cranks up rates on the high end more than we do, not that it is necessarily better) and a bigger "welfare" system. I suspect our productivity problems are more complex than this and relate to poor levels of capital outlay and shortsighted management. I might also ask how suddenly employing a bunch of these indolent welfare bums we seem to be imagining is going to help us improve productivity. And then there's robotics. There's a fair chance that automation may really automate a good fraction of the work force out of jobs; then what do we do? Let 'em starve? Give up automation? What if we really DO need far fewer workers than there are adults, and well-trained workers at that? I see it now: Robots versus Libertarians... D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/10/84)
<>
Much recent discussion has suggested that "Capitalism" is a synonym for
"free market" when it is, speaking strictly I admit, not.
Capitalism is the economic system that allows private ownership of the
means of production, and allows the owners (capitalists) to make money
simply because they own the means, not because they are hard workers,
bright (they HIRE bright people), etc. A free-market economy is one that
permits competition among producers without "excessive" (YOU define it)
outside intervention. Presumably a free market would lead to
capitalism, but the reverse is not necessarily true (e.g. monopoly
or oligopoly capitalism -- prior to the breakup we had a capitalistic
telephone system in the USA, I remind you).
I once saw a little item than ran something like this:
If you have 2 cows, under
COMMUNISM you give them to the government and the government gives
you some milk.
FASCISM you give the milk to the government, and they give some back
to you.
CAPITALISM you sell one and buy a bull.
Moo to you, too,
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary