Its not an issue of whether its acceptable or not. Being rich is not a God given right. They have to pay for the privilege.
In my opinion property rights are human rights just as freedom of speech. Even if you don't go that far I fail to see how you can assert that the government has a right to the property.
Its very simple.......they are paying for the good life. Its a privilege to live here and get rich, not a guarantee or a God or Tim given right.
Recognizing those facts you have to either accept 1 - Ever increasing taxes on the rich, or 2 - That the wealthy will benefit more than everyone else when tax rates go down. There are no other alternatives except maybe fixing taxes rates so they no longer move up and down, and that isn't very likely to happen.
I don't understand what you're saying.
I don't think you are making any effort to understand the point. Its not the complex. You seem to consider each tax increase in isolation. If taxes go down and the wealthy benefit you consider that a bad thing. If taxes go up on the wealthy you have no problem with that, and may consider it a good thing.
Sorry but you want to believe that's true so you can dismiss my argument. However, my position was not made in isolation but rather it was based on a very basic premise. We do not have enough revenue coming in to pay our bills. As a consequence, our debt is climbing very quickly. Inspite of all the doubletalk spun out by GOP economists, this increasing debt is not a good thing. It suggests we are living beyond our means and its putting this country at the mercy of its foreign creditors. Americans don't like it and want the wealthy to pay their fair share........something they are not doing now.
But you don't just get one change in the tax rate. You have taxes go up and down over the years. You want the rich to never recieve more benefit from any change than anyone else, but at the same time you want them to have to pay the majority of any increase. If you have an increase followed by a decrease, followed by an increase, followed by a decrease in tax rates over the years, and you don't allow the wealthy to benefit from the cuts at any point, then you have a situation with continual increases in taxes for the rich.
Gobbley gook. What I am proposing is not nearly that complex.
Given that no nation has an economy that is truly laissez-faire, the US economy is about as close as you can get.
The US economy is far from as close as you can get.
I said......as close as a country can get.
Its far from as close as a country can get.
In theory it could get closer but in practice it would be impossible without causing considerable suffering for some people. That's something Americans have not been willing to do since the 1930s depression.
"I don't actually expect such a situation to happen, at least not soon, but by insisting that the wealthy not benefit from tax cuts you are effectively calling for this to happen."
I am not. I am calling for them to pay the tax rate that existed before Bush's foolish tax cuts.
That might be what you want, but it was not what you are calling for. If you want to say the rich should pay the same rate as they paid under Clinton it would be much easier to just say that rather than attack the idea of the rich benefiting more from tax cuts than anyone else.
This is silly. I've given up trying understand how you come to the conclusions you do. |
