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