Quote:
Originally Posted by JWsleep
I can, Charlie Brown. Lights, please...
Here's one line of thought:
The overall health of the economy suffers when we have these huge deficits and a ballooning national debt. People are unwilling to cut the defense budget, Social Security, highway funds, head start, homeland security, etc. So we need more revenue. Claim: the middle class is the engine of the economy, so don't tax them--cut their taxes. The poor have no money to tax. So tax the rich. They can most afford to pay (yes, they're angry about it, but they won't lose their homes, healthcare, etc.). Further, doing this in the past has been good for the economy--progressive taxation is better economically then trickledown economics. So it's the right thing to do.
Is it fair to tax one group of citizens more than another? (This, I think, is among the most important differences between conservatives and liberals.) My feeling: yes, if it can be shown that the overall economy gets better, and so a rising tide lifts all boats, even the big rich yachts. Also, it may be that the rich should give something back to help the overall health of the nation where they've done so well (and, BTW, I'd certainly make charitable donations tax deductible up the wazoo).
Worry: excessive taxation is a drag on investment and undermines the motivational energies of the economy. That seems a good worry. Solution: find the progressive tax polices that have the least negative effect on these things. There are lots of ways to do this, but none of them fit in a message board post or a campaign add. So we need leaders who are smart enough to find the right fit here. I thought Clinton's team wasn't bad. I think Obama is more of this stripe than his opponents (and many of his friends) think. I think McCain is open to this (or he was), but since running to the right, he may not be able to get back to this reasonable sort of view. Hence, I prefer Obama on this issue.
If you're against ANY taxation, or any progressive taxation, neither of these candidates is for you. See Bob Barr, maybe?
|
Okay, there's a lot of points here and Slingin Sammy and firstdown have already responded to many of them... And yes, I'm voting for Bob Barr because John McCain is equally as bad for this economy as Barack Obama is. All of this massive spending on foreign misadventures on top of the ballooning federal budget and national debt must be stopped ASAP.
Let me just say up front that I favor supply side economics -- you and others refer it to as "trickle down".
Have you ever heard the statistic that says something like 7 out of 10 new businesses fail? And that around five of those 7 fail immediately? The point here is that most people don't understand the risk that is involved with starting a new business. Most people don't understand, because most people don't go through with the trouble of starting a business, mainly out of fear. Fear of the risk that goes with it and the money they stand to lose. So the odds are stacked against the people who do take the risk at the outset.
The problem with progressive taxation is that it in effect punishes those who have already passed the incredible hurdle of starting a business and maintaining it to the point that it is profitable. When you stick it to the risk-takers through higher taxation, for no other reason than they have been able to collect more wealth than others who do not take such risks, it inhibits growth, it reduces the incentive for starting new businesses, it takes money away from businesses who might expand, make more capital investments, and hire more employees.
You say that the middle class are the "engine of the economy". Fine. But they are only the engine because businesses, large and small, are there to employ them. If we take your economic philosophy to its logical conclusion, then not only are corporations there to employ people, but the government should act to take money away from the business owners and give it to the workers, i.e. the middle class. Would you agree that if taken too far, that particular tax policy could drive businesses
out of business? What would happen if the tax structure got so out of hand that the wealthy business owners said that it was no longer worth it? That there's no reason to continue doing business because the government is taking more of their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it? What if they just walk away?
One more thing about "giving back". I've never liked that expression. It implies that the rich have taken something that doesn't belong to them. That they should "give it back", I suppose through higher taxation. What exactly, have they taken? And if they have achieved their riches through starting a successful business, then the middle class benefits because they have a job thanks to the success of their wealthy employers.
I and other supply siders aren't against all forms of taxation. Obviously we have to maintain the basic functions of government, like police, fire, national defense, that sort of thing. The issue is that the money is taken from high earners by politicians who in turn promise that money to people who didn't earn it in exchange for votes. Vote me in, and I'll make sure the tax structure stays the way it is -- and since there are way more low and middle income voters than high income voters, that politician is sitting pretty.
The only fair way to collect taxes is to get the same amount from everybody. Everybody pays the same percentage. Period. That's the very definition of fairness. Anything else pits class against class, stifles economic growth and if we get right down to it -- it's thievery. Legalized thievery. Taking money from one person simply because he has more of it, and giving it to someone who doesn't have as much.