Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!we13!tty3b!mjk
From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Who SAYS it's yours?
Message-ID: <309@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 14:18:10 EST
Article-I.D.: tty3b.309
Posted: Wed Feb 22 14:18:10 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Feb-84 04:47:44 EST
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 43

I received personal mail this morning in response to a previous
posting in which I mentioned what I thought was obvious to anyone
who's bothered to look: that Ronald Reagan has engineered a reverse
transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.  His tools have been
primarily the tax system, aided by increases in military spending
(which, economically, are simply subsidies to highly capital-intensive
businesses -- i.e. few workers benefit from increases in military
spending, but capitalists profit nicely) and large-scale cuts in
numerous social programs.  The net effect, according to Citizens for
Tax Justice, which bases its figures on the Economic Report of the
President and reports from the Senate Finance Committee and the House
Ways and Means Committee, is that the Reagan "tax cut" increased taxes
30.2% (an average of $134/year) for people with incomes under $10,000
and decreased taxes 15.7% (an average of $20,287/year) for people with
incomes over $200,000; the break-even point is about $30,000/year (i.e.
these people saw their net taxes neither increase nor decrease due to
Reagan policies).

The note I received was from a man who was incensed that I thought that
taking less from the rich constituted a transfer of wealth.
That got me thinking about what determines what belongs to whom.  To me,
all that determines that is state policy.  In other words, there is no
private property unless the state decides that there is private property.
The state does not taketh; it giveth.

This no doubt makes Libertarians stand and scream.  But consider a factory
owner.   Why does HE own
the product of that factory, produced by the labor of hundreds of workers?
Simple: because the state conspires with him to prevent anyone from taking
it.  It conspires by (until fairly recently) making it illegal for workers
to organize for higher wages or better working conditions.  It conspired by
sending the army (yes, it happened here in the good 'ol US of A) to kill
workers who tried to organize.   It conspires by, more recently, letting him
break contracts with his workers if he has financial trouble.

So the "this is mine and the state is extorting it from me" attitude makes
me laugh.  Try and hold on to it if the state weren't around to protect you
from rioting workers.

Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk