the rich and corporate parasites Re: [LINK] Why so many of us think we're overtaxed

Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:47:25 +1100

At 3:24 PM +1100 25/2/03, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
>there is recuring theme when tax is mentioned, perticularly
>that corporates are parasites and that there is something evil
>about being rich (a post I wont quote from) and that the rich and 
>corporates should not receive tax cuts.

I hope you don't mean my post, since I'm pretty sure I didn't say 
that there's something evil about being rich. Jesus certainly said 
that, but I'm a Discordian Jew, not a Christian. I haven't noticed 
anyone say that in this forum - are you sure you're not setting up a 
straw man?

>however the facts bear out a different story:

All I see at that link is a string of assertions, implying causality 
without evidence. Facts alone don't make an argument - there must be 
logic as well.

Incidentally, the NCPA also say that global warming is science fiction:

that background checks at gun shows, trigger locks and laws mandating 
that firearms be stored safely are a bad idea:

That increasing the minimum wage from $5.15/hr to $6.15/hr over 18 
months would be unfair to the poor:

That workers in the third world go without labour rights by choice:

And so on.

>what people should realise is that there will always be inequality 
>and the larger the economy
>the larger the inequality will be. the notion of trying to improve 
>everyones lot without creating
>inequality is a myth and has historically proved to be unworkable.

What is the evidence for this link you assert between increased 
overall prosperity and increased inequality? I consider inequality 
itself to be a societal negative - it creates incentive for the 
disenfranchised to subvert or overthrow the system. Why not increase 
prosperity and equality at the same time?

>there is incredible outrage when australian CEO earn over a million 
>dollars a year yet look
>at US CEO renumeration

There's more outrage really at multi-million dollar payments to CEOs 
on termination of their contract when it's clear that their 
involvement in the enterprise in question has been negative. For 
example in the case of the CEO of a company bought for an absurd 
amount by a larger company, which is then found to have been a 
liability all along, followed by the dismissal of that person with a 
massive payout - for what? For playing the system very effectively. I 
would like to think that large payments had something to do with 
merit, or at the very least with performance.

The fact that it's even worse in the US is no consolation.

>my points are simple, cuting taxes will stimulate the economy which 
>will create more wealth which
>will in turn create a wider distribution of wealth curve and the 
>apparent contradiction
>that for the many to benefit a few always will benefit far more.

If tax cuts are intended to stimulate the economy by increasing 
spending, they should be targeted at people who already spend 
everything they have, and who would spend more if they had more. In 
other words, people without savings; the poorest of us. Tax cuts for 
those who already have large stores of wealth will not stimulate the 
economy nearly as much.


Viveka Weiley, Karmanaut.
{ | | }
Hypermedia, virtual worlds, human interface, truth, beauty.