in article caurq1$qvh$10@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 10:47 PM:

> necoandjeff <spam@schrepfer.com> wrote:
>> <mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:cauqgu$qvh$2@news.Stanford.EDU...
> 
>>>> Remember, that in a government contract, the payments received are not
>> aid
>>>> but merely compensation for goods or services received.
>>> 
>>> Correct.
>>> 
>>> And pray, how many of these poor have the advantage of selling things to
>>> the government.
> 
>> This kind of logic is bordering on the absurd...
> 
> Really?
> 
> Sorry, but there is more than one way to derive a benefit from an
> entity, is there not?
> 
> Do you believe you can derive a benefit only by a payout, yes or no?
> 
> And, of course, he derives another benefit from a legal system which
> protects his property and intellectual rights, as already mentioned.
> 
> If you disagree, could you explain how he does NOT derive benefit from
> roads, stability, laws to protect wealth and control such things as
> stock markets, legal protections of intellectual properties, etc?
> 
> Mike

Mike,

Assuming that one could distort the definition of government benefit to
include any advantage, no matter how remote and how indirect, as long as it
could be somehow traced back to an action of the government, then everything
you say about the rich could be said about the poor, because everything the
poor have or have ever had can be traced at least very remotely to something
dealing with the government.

For instance, if the poor work, they benefit from roads, stability, laws to
protect wealth and control such things as stock markets, legal protections
of intellectual properties, etc. If the poor beg, the pennies they get were
earned or inherited or obtained benefiting from roads, stability, laws to
protect wealth and control such things as stock markets, legal protections
of intellectual properties, etc. If the poor steal, the things they steal
were created by persons benefiting from roads, stability, laws to protect
wealth and control such things as stock markets, legal protections of
intellectual properties, etc. In addition the medical advances made so that
they live beyond the age of thirty were made possible directly or indirectly
by government support of medical research. The fact that the can read is
attributable to an education system financed by the government (in the case
of public schools) or made possible by the stability of government (in the
case of private schools).

Why do your distortions matter? They matter because of your initial
statement "Actually, no, he didn't. What he did was cut taxes
across-the-board, BUT gave a disproportionate cut to the upper income
brackets." You never did explain what you meant by that remark, especially
what you meant by "disproportionate." (Disproportionate to what?) You also
stated that "the very rich benefit disproportionately from
government services," again not explaining what you meant by
"disproportionately."

I would agree if all you meant to say is that God has been good to the rich
and has favored them over the poor, but it sounds like you are saying "let's
soak the rich because their wealth won't exist if it wasn't for the
stability and protections caused by the government." (Completely ignoring
the fact that the statement would apply to the wealth of the poor and middle
class as well.)

Two major things are noticeable. The first is your constant refusal to
clarify what you mean (for instance, disproportionate to what?). The second
is your constant attempts to stretch the meaning of words beyond their
conventional meaning or to give them meanings divorced from the conventional
meaning (like using "total tax burden" as if it meant "total percentage of
tax burden").

You say that you are not placing a value judgment on the tax system, but the
tone and general drift of your messages say otherwise. The context of your
messages and their tone suggest strongly that you disapproved of Reagan
making the tax system a flatter tax, but the reason for your disapprove is
left vague. You constantly refuse to quantify what you mean.

There seem to be two lines of thought you are making:

1. The rich receive benefit from a stable government in a lot of ways.

2. Although the rich continue to pay taxes at a much higher tax rate than
the poor, the difference between their tax rates and the tax rates of poorer
people has been reduced.

You make no stated conclusion from those two lines of thought, but the
implied conclusion (based upon the context and tone of your messages) is
that the difference between their tax rates and the tax rates of poorer
people is too small. If that is not what you are trying to say, why not say
so?

So far, you have failed to show that the ratio of total government benefits
received by the rich to total taxes paid by the rich is anywhere near as
high as the ratio of total government benefits received by the less rich to
total taxes paid by the less rich, and you have failed to show that further
flattening of the tax system is not warranted.