At 09:15 AM 9/26/2004, you wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:50:28 -0700 Shawn Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
> > How in the world can you say the transfer of trillions of dollars is
> > unsubstantiated and unfounded?  I don't know about Canada, but it's a
> > FACT in the US, we have indeed taxed the "wealthy" more and more and
> > more over the years and given more and more and more to those who do
> > not have as much.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of
> > wealth that the wealthy may have.
>
>First of all, trillions and trillions of dollars is only meaningful
>to an individual.  You might consider trillions and trillions of
>dollars a lot of money, and in one pocket it certainly is, but spread
>over 60 million poor and a further 100 million working poor it
>amounts to less than $8,000.00 a head spread out over many years.
>Hardly the irresponsible largesse that your exclamation implies.
>Conceding your claim does not charge the fact that it is beside the
>point.

and where do you get these numbers?  I gave you the source of my numbers,
but you fling these around as though they are gospel.


>I can say what I said because there is no evidence to support your
>underlying contention and a great deal that refutes it.  You can
>start by considering the work of economists like Edward Wolff or
>David S. Landes and go from there, but you will find scant evidence
>that significant wealth has has been removed from the wealthy and
>given to the poor in the United States.

this doesn't even make sense.  You are trying to say that we have NOT in
fact transferred trillions of dollars?  I said nothing about "significant
wealth", I said trillions of dollars.

>Even such public social policies as the the US possesses, like
>MedicAid (sic?), simply have the effect of first despoiling the sick
>and injured of all of their possessions and then transferring public
>monies directly to medical care providers and drug companies, none of
>whose owners can be considered to number among the poor.  If you get
>seriously sick or hurt in the USA and are not covered by private
>heath care insurance, and often even when you are, you will become
>poor if you are not already.  And you will never recover what you
>once owned.

ok, what is your basis for this assertion?  More "facts" pulled out of the air?

>Wealth may increase over time, but at any instant there is always
>only a fixed amount.  As recent and continuous analysis of the US
>population shows, if a few hold most of the available wealth then
>many go without any at all. A rising tide only lifts boats that are
>afloat in other words, and it drowns those who are already stuck at
>the bottom.

what point are you trying to make with this, and what substantiates it?


> > the FACT is that in the US  the overwhelming majority of federal income
> > taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income
> > earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top
> > 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays
> > 78% of all federal income taxes.
>
>Hardly surprising when you consider that about half (44%) of all
>income earners in the US do not make enough in a year (~>$10,000 for
>a family of two) to pay federal taxes.  This is an indictment of
>society that prevents a person from making a living wage rather than
>a condemnation of a tax system that recognizes the impossibility of
>taxing what is not there to begin with.

that is utter rubbish at every level of your argument, you throw out
unsubstantiated numbers and then make veiled comments that somehow the US
suppresses the ability of people to earn an income.

>In short, your assertions are without foundation. They are
>expressions of an ideological belief propped up by irrelevant and
>misleading pieces of data.  Your beliefs have no more basis in
>reality than any other political polemic and quiet a bit less than
>some. They are hold-overs from nineteenth-century LIBERAL social and
>economic theories. Saying such things over and over may help you
>believe in them but you will not make them become fact by such self-
>deceptions.  You can however, contribute meaningfully to the spread
>of the misery that results from such feelings.

You see, the fact is that I actually had data to back up what I said, and
it is without refute, the facts stand for themselves.  What you've done is
pulled a bunch of monkeys out of the air and parade them around with
various names to make some nebulous point that is meaningless and without
merit or foundation, although you do it at great length, perhaps you feel
that the more you talk, even without substance, it will somehow be thought
to be true because how could someone go on and on and on so much and not
have any facts to back them up?


>--
>
>***     e-mail is NOT a secure channel     ***
>James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB.<token>@Harte-Lyne.ca
>Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
>9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
>Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
>Canada  L8E 3CE               delivery <token> = hal
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *