On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:09:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


As long as you don't ask them if they understand the long term
consequences
of such a tax decision, you're all set. At least in terms of getting
yourself elected, and the aforementioned consequences don't come down
the
chute until your term of office ends and you're back on your ranch.


And just what are those consequences?

An economist can explain that to you.


I'm asking you. I already know.

There's a big difference between:

1) The Soviet Union, where entire lists of professions were lumped into
broad categories which, according to a Kremlin committee, all had the same
income value.
and:
2) Taxing citizens to provide services.


The differences are not that much. The only difference is where you
pay and how. What's the difference if you and another less skilled
person are both paid $30,000 a year in salary, compared to whether you
are paid $60,000 to his $30,000, but you are taxed 50% of that salary,
while his is only taxed at 10%?



My only concern is our ability to sell
more bonds when interest rates are a complete snooze, as they are now.

I'm solidly into stocks now. I've almost made up for the slump of the
last 2 years.

What you invest in is not connected with the government's abilities to sell
bonds when rates are unattractive.

I'm only concerned my retirement income. That's why I'm providing my
own, and not depending on the government to provide it.


We can support our lowered tax
structure as long as we roll back much of the left's entitlement
programs

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

Yea, same old. But still just as true.

It's a snore because you've said you shop for the best prices. In many
cases, these prices exist because a company keeps expenses low by keeping
salaries and benefits low. So, to have the things YOU want, and the prices
YOU want, you must accept the existence of a lower class of workers
PERMANENTLY.

I totally understand this, and have no problem accepting it. It's
human nature. That's not to say that I'm automatically a bad person
for playing the system to my advantage.


This is not to say that the exact same people will remain in a
certain class forever (although some will).

They can always strive for training and education and move up the
"class" ladder. It's their own choice.


It simply means that a company
will always need a certain number of employees in that income class. It's
necessary because of YOU and everyone else who patronizes that business. The
next logical step is to realize that if you want that class to be available
to service YOU, you must accept that some of them may want to have families.
They may want health insurance. They may need a helping hand when it comes
to affording food for their kids.

Personal responsibility dictates that you not have more mouths than
you can afford to feed. Poor planning on your part does not constitute
a financial crisis on mine.



This is not socialism, at least not the
way it's defined by the people who created the concept.

No, THIS is not socialism. But the solution to the problem often times
includes socialist concepts. Anytime you penalize an achiever to prop
up an underachiever, you are redistributing wealth and that is a core
socialist principle.




But, you know that. You've read Marx and Engels.

Yes I have.

Who needs knowledge when you
have Cheetos, the Simpsons, and that third thing - the opiate of the
masses?
You understand that last reference, I'm sure, because you have knowledge.

Opiates imply illicit drugs. But you could be using the term
metaphorically, to refer to such carnal activities such as sex.

I was hoping you were already familiar with the comment and its author,
because for me to mention it will send you off on a tangent. "Religion is
the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx


Your disdain for religion and to the family and community bonds that
it provides, speaks volumes as to why you think the way you do. Those
bonds and the networks that form along them took care of those in need
long before the "gimme" generation started looking to the government
to mandate the concept. Government control of course, would open the
door to abuse, and isolates the recipient from the donor, and lessens
the shame which would normally happen if the recipient were "cheating"
the system.


Dave