On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:55:27PM -0800, Mike Lee wrote: > An assumption being made here is that the poor should pay less just > because they're poor. Actually, I can see a good argument for them > having to pay *more* because they contribute so little to the society > that makes it possible for them to be poor and still have color tv's > and microwaves.
So tax color TV's and microwave ovens, if you can. > The majority of people who are poor are either young and paying > their dues or else they work less, work less intelligently, have > less discipline and focus, and contribute less to the wealth and > infrastructure of our culture. Very many of them already take out a > lot more than they put in, not because of inability but because of > choice. Even if everyone chooses to try harder to contribute more, there will still be half of the people contributing below the median. > And while we're wringing our hands about regressive taxation, we > should stop taxing cigarettes so heavily, since poor people, who > tend to be stupider, lazier and have poorer impulse control, smoke > cigarettes more heavily than the upper classes. They also tend to be more numerous than the upper classes. And we live, at least nominally, in a democracy. So, for your policy to succeed, you had better hope that their laziness continues to extend to having a low voter turnout. If they get riled enough, you can bet they will turnout to vote in large numbers (Nancy Kress' _Beggars in Spain_ comes to mind). > Nobody can seriously argue that the poor will starve if there are > increased taxes on consumption. They just won't be able to buy as > much. Which would be a good thing for their health, because the poor > tend to be really fat too. Let them eat cake.... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
