Terry, I'm a bit exhausted from defending my postion in the Wall Street thread, the one I started. I have posted many replies there, trying to explain my views. I'm not asking you to read everything I have written, of course. But I get the impression that you have not read any of my posts at all, if you can say this to me:
Some people talk about the "uneven distribution of wealth" as if it were a new phenomenon, or that government can somehow wave a magic wand and make everyone happy with equal amounts of money. It doesn't work that way, not in the US or in Russia or in China or Sweden or Iraq or anywhere else.
I think I posted thirty-seven replies in the Wall Street thread, give or take a few. I really tried to explain how I look at taxes and equality in those thirty-seven replies. So tell me, Terry. In which of them did I say that I want a society where everybody has, as you put it, 'equal amounts of money'? Where did I say that? Please tell me, so I can check the date of that post and go back and find out what I did that day, and who put the hallucinogenic or mind-altering drug in whatever I was drinking that day, to make me write something like that.
No, Terry. I do
not believe that everybody in a society should have exactly the same amount of money. I don't believe that that is a worthy goal for any society. And I reject it as a goal for two reasons. First, that it can never, and I mean
never, be realized. It is a pipe dream. It is more impossible than men who can fly.
The second reason why I don't consider that sort of perfect equality a worthy goal is that anyone who even
tries to realize it will have to become a horrible dictator in the process. Talk about interfering with other people's lives. But no matter how such a dictator would use terror to try to distribute all the wealth in his country perfectly equally, he would still fail miserably at making everybody economically just the same.
So, Terry. NO. I do NOT believe that everybody should be perfectly equal in terms of income and property.
What I do believe - and indeed, I really do believe it - is that it is a good thing if those who are rich in a society are required to pay taxes, so that the government can use that tax revenue to make things better for all of those who are not among the richest in that society.
I believe that it is bad if a government cuts taxes for the rich. I believe that it is particularly bad if a government allows the richest people in their society to become even richer, while those who are poorest become even poorer. Even more than that, I think it is morally wrong and financially unsound if the majority of a population actually becomes poorer, while a small minority becomes almost exponentially richer. It offends my sense of fairness, my belief that we are all basically equals. I think that if a society allows the rich to become infinitely richer and the majority of the population to become poorer, then that society approaches a situation where a small, super-rich minority can basically own the majority of the population. If a small minority of the population owns most of the property in a country, then what is going to stop them from basically owning their fellow men, too?
So I think it is noble as well as financially sound to try to create a measure of economic equality in any society. But I most certainly realize that you can never,
never have complete equality, and it is the worst kind of folly to try to strive for it. Indeed, it is not only folly, but it is madness, and it can only lead to what I would describe as a 1984 kind of society.
But, yes, I think taxes are good. I like taxes. I think everybody should pay taxes, except those who only earn the minimum wage. And I think that the richer you are, the more of your income you should be required to pay in taxes.
I don't mean that some people shouldn't be allowed to become filthy rich. Why shouldn't Bill Gates be allowed to become mega-rich? Why shouldn't J.K. Rowling be allowed to become a super-billionaire? I see no reason at all why some extremely talented and hard-working people should not be allowed to become incredibly wealthy.
On the other hand, I see no reason at all to cut Bill Gates' or J.K. Rowling's taxes. I see no reason at all to cut taxes for the rich. The rich should pay taxes, and that money should be used for the good of society as a whole and for the good of the majority of the population in that society. And it should definitely be used to help the most vulnerable and helpless in that society.
Let me add one more thing. Terry, I thought you sounded almost defensive about the fact that you are not going to vote for Obama in this election:
I do not plan to vote for Senator Obama for President in November. And my vote has nothing to do with his age, his skin color, or the gender and attractiveness quotient of his running mate.
Well, you live in a democracy. That means that you don't have to defend your reasons for voting for a certain candidate. You shouldn't have to tell us that it isn't Obama's age or skin color that has convinced you not to vote for him. I don't think you decide who you will vote for based on such things. You shouldn't be obliged to tell us that you don't pick your candidate for such trivial reasons. Basically we should respect each other when we discuss these things, and that means we are wildly out of line if we assume that people who post in this thread are, for example, racists, airheads or simply uninterested in politics. No one should have to, sort of, almost apologize for either voting or not voting for Obama (or for McCain).
Ann
