Tom Beck defended the poor from higher consumption taxes: > Except, the poor have no choice but to consume (we all have > to consume SOMETHING), and nothing to invest (because they've > spent all their little money).
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. 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. It's considered in bad taste to make moral distinctions about why people are poor, but too bad. I've been poor and I know what the poor are like. A minority are incapable of making better lives for themselves. The majority aren't career-minded, to say the least. They take low-skill jobs and don't invest in themselves, in favor of entertainment and recreational drugs as favorite off-duty activities. If we want to try to identify and subsidize the "deserving" poor, fine. But let's stop wringing our hands about the plight of most poor people--since most of them *deserve* to be poor. I know, I'm going to hear all kinds of stories about sainted single mothers who worked their fingers to the bone to raise their kids, and handicapped people and crazy people, and so on. Those people exist, but they're not the majority of the poor. 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. A tax policy that encourages savings and penalizes consumption will be good for poor people (who give a damn about their lives) because it will encourage them to consume less and save more. Not only do they build wealth for their own future, but it will help them build the psychological discipline of becoming oriented toward the future, and that will help them achieve all kinds of goals. 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. -Mike _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
