[Economy 101] Helvering - Again
David Loewe, Jr.
undeniable truth of the statement made by "Helvering" on that blog.
Despite the fact that I have shown that the Estate Tax (in America)
generates very little actual revenue and may, in fact, cost more to
administer that it brings in (thus being a *drain* on resources), the
Progressives (liberals/socialists/...dirty pinko commies... ;-)) on this
news group keep telling me that the Estate Tax is a *good* thing and
that *the value of it does not depend on whether or not it raises any
money at all*. In fact, the very fact that it redistributes wealth -
EXACTLY as "Helvering" claimed - is said to be the good part of it.
I want to thank of all of you for proving my point for me.
--
"For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
citizenry."
- Gregory V. Helvering
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> The recent discussion of the Estate Tax reinforces by belief in
> the undeniable truth of the statement made by "Helvering" on that
> blog.
>
> Despite the fact that I have shown that the Estate Tax (in
> America) generates very little actual revenue and may, in fact,
> cost more to administer that it brings in (thus being a *drain* on
> resources), the Progressives (liberals/socialists/...dirty pinko
> commies... ;-)) on this news group keep telling me that the Estate
> Tax is a *good* thing and that *the value of it does not depend on
> whether or not it raises any money at all*. In fact, the very
> fact that it redistributes wealth - EXACTLY as "Helvering" claimed
> - is said to be the good part of it.
>
> I want to thank of all of you for proving my point for me.
Are you referring to:
"For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
citizenry."
- Gregory V. Helvering
? If so, I fail to see how "I support some degree of redistribution
of wealth" == "I want to equalize the income of the citizenry."
-- wds
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
Which part of "goal" do you not understand?
--
"Man, I'd give anything to be as articulate as Steve Jobs."
- Bill Gates
William December Starr
The part where Helvering makes it up and declares it to be fact.
No, wait, I do understand that. I just don't like it.
-- wds
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>>
>>>> Despite the fact that I have shown that the Estate Tax (in
>>>> America) generates very little actual revenue and may, in fact,
>>>> cost more to administer that it brings in (thus being a *drain*
>>>> on resources), the Progressives (liberals/socialists/...dirty
>>>> pinko commies... ;-)) on this news group keep telling me that
>>>> the Estate Tax is a *good* thing and that *the value of it does
>>>> not depend on whether or not it raises any money at all*. In
>>>> fact, the very fact that it redistributes wealth - EXACTLY as
>>>> "Helvering" claimed - is said to be the good part of it.
>>>>
>>>> I want to thank of all of you for proving my point for me.
>>>
>>> Are you referring to:
>>>
>>> "For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
>>> revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
>>> citizenry."
>>> - Gregory V. Helvering
>>>
>>> ? If so, I fail to see how "I support some degree of redistribution
>>> of wealth" == "I want to equalize the income of the citizenry."
>>
>> Which part of "goal" do you not understand?
>
>The part where Helvering makes it up and declares it to be fact.
He didn't make it up.
>No, wait, I do understand that. I just don't like it.
--
"Though these wounds have seen no wars
Except for the scars I have ignored
And this endless crutch, well it's never enough
It's been the Worst Day Since Yesterday"
- Flogging Molly
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you referring to:
>>>>
>>>> "For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
>>>> revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
>>>> citizenry."
>>>> - Gregory V. Helvering
>>>>
>>>> ? If so, I fail to see how "I support some degree of redistribution
>>>> of wealth" == "I want to equalize the income of the citizenry."
>>>
>>> Which part of "goal" do you not understand?
>>
>> The part where Helvering makes it up and declares it to be fact.
>
> He didn't make it up.
I suggest that you, and Helvering, are committing a fallacy of this
form:
(1) Some people want X.
(2) If X is considered as a railroad track with no branches, and we
proceed down that track to its endpoint, we reach Y.
(3) Any person who wants something that can be modeled as a railroad
track with no branches wants -- i.e., has as a goal -- to proceed all
the way down that track to its endpoint.
(4) Therefore, the people who want X have a goal of Y.
The flaw, even assuming that in a given case the modeling performed in
point (2) is correct, lies in point (3).
-- wds
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you referring to:
>>>>>
>>>>> "For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
>>>>> revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
>>>>> citizenry."
>>>>> - Gregory V. Helvering
>>>>>
>>>>> ? If so, I fail to see how "I support some degree of redistribution
>>>>> of wealth" == "I want to equalize the income of the citizenry."
>>>>
>>>> Which part of "goal" do you not understand?
>>>
>>> The part where Helvering makes it up and declares it to be fact.
>>
>> He didn't make it up.
>
>I suggest that you, and Helvering, are committing a fallacy of this
>form:
I suggest that you are taking a *generalization* far too seriously.
>(1) Some people want X.
>
>(2) If X is considered as a railroad track with no branches, and we
>proceed down that track to its endpoint, we reach Y.
>
>(3) Any person who wants something that can be modeled as a railroad
>track with no branches wants -- i.e., has as a goal -- to proceed all
>the way down that track to its endpoint.
>
>(4) Therefore, the people who want X have a goal of Y.
>
>The flaw, even assuming that in a given case the modeling performed in
>point (2) is correct, lies in point (3).
--
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this
in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not,
you can kill him without hate - and quickly."
-Lazarus Long
David Friedman
Alternatively, what they mean by "equalize" is "make more equal."
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.