Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan
Well, you've certainly got the talking points down. Obviously I have sharp ideological differences with you and I just cannot help thinking about late 19th century politics when I start hearing buzzwords like "confiscation and wealth redistribution" since those were the same arguments that helped topple the Reconstruction project (cf. Heather Cox Richardson, The Death of Reconstruction). Like those Gilded Age politicians you ignore structural inequality and effectively say that the wealthy have money because they are worthy and the poor do not because they are lazy and unworthy. More importantly, I think you oversimplify the argument by setting up the strawman of the 'tax and spend' liberal boogyman.
|
First, I agree with you, we do have sharp ideological differences.
However, IMO even though we have these differences it is important to have the discussion even though neither of our minds will be changed.
My post has nothing to do with "talking points", I didn't search Hannity or Rush's websites, the RNC or anyone else's. Other than accuse me of using "talking points", then throw out the "buzz-word" implication, you haven't put forward any accurate or logical dispute to what I said.
I understand structural inequalities and I would argue that we are not in 1888, but 2008 and while not perfect, I think our government has done a better job than most in putting programs in place to address that. Our tax structure is already progressive, it certainly doesn't need to become confiscatory.
Let me be clear. I don't consider $ 250-300K yr. for a family "wealthy". If one spouse or the primary breadwinner in a family with this level of income lost his/her job that family would be in trouble. If a person puts in the work, makes good decisions, and the necessary sacrifices, and that person is rewarded with material wealth they should not feel guilty or be the object of ridicule (as the "greedy" or "wealthy"). If people are poor because they didn't take advantage of educational opportunities, or government programs available, or repeatedly made bad decisons regarding having children or with drugs/alcohol, their situation is their own fault.
I'm also not setting up any "tax and spend boogeyman". I didn't mention the appropriations of tax dollars only the principles behind their collection. As far as I'm concerned, the Bush Administration has been as bad or worse than any Democrat or Democrat controlled Congress when it comes to increasing the scope and size of government.
Here's some interesting info:
Where do these two points come from?
1) Establish a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
2) Abolish all rights of inheritance (Death Tax)
Answer: Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848.
In 1894 a 2% tax on those making over $ 4,000 / yr. was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In 1896 and 1908 the Democratic Party was pushing for a constitutional ammendment to add the income tax, Republicans were against it. Even in the early 1900s, it was touted as a "tax on the rich" that wouldn't affect most Americans (OOOOPS!).
Adjusted for todays dollars the income tax in 1913 was 1% on those making over $ 250K and 7% on those making over $ 6M. How far we've come. I'll get down now.
