You own yourself. This means that you own the fruits of your body's labor and your mind's ingenuity.
I'm glad discussions on policy are happening across the country. I had more than a little concern that policy would fall off the radar after the elections and during the holiday season. Fortunately, I have observed everything from concerns over the fate of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to quite a lot of discussion on taxation. Taxation is especially important to me.…
Article comments
76 - Steve S
You can't pull of naivete on the graduated income tax
I'm not. I'm willing to discuss the graduated income tax. But I don't need to defend an ideology that doesn't exist.
determined to make everyone equal financially
But that's not the intent. There is no determination to do that, from any ideology that I know of. I am being expected to debate the determination of making everyone financially the same here, but that's not an ideology of Progressivism, so I don't need to defend that.
Spiderleaf and I provided multiple sources to substantiate the Left's position on the number of homeless and poor in this thread. The only counter to that was the usage of the census, and I pointed out a problem with that. A pretty big one. Rather than come up with more data to substantiate a significantly weakened claim, the topic was swung around to where Progressivism has to now defend itself against a charge based on non-existant ideology.
That's what I mean by the Right defines the narrative. When more facts and data came up, change the topic to something 'Orwellian'. (or Vonneguttian).
A government can't exist without taxes. And with a flat tax of 10,000 per year, a person making 20k would have to forfeit half his income. A person making 30 million per year would pay 1/3 of 1% of his income in taxes, and you want me to be on the defensive as to why a progressive tax isn't 'fair', and this way is.
It seems to me, you should be on the defensive, trying to explain why a flat tax is fair. Because it isn't.
A flat tax shifts the tax burden off the upper class onto the middle class. We shouldn't raise tax rates on the middle classes to pay for tax reduction for the rich. You can get almost all of the benefits of these flat tax proposals"in terms of simplicity, economic efficiency, and the fairness of the tax base"without abandoning America's longstanding and sensible commitment to at least moderate progressivity in tax burdens.
It may not be the ideal of Progressivism According to Steve
I don't claim to hold a lock on ideologies as you imply, but when President Bush gave a tax cut awhile back:
"At a time when income disparities in the United States are the widest on record, the Administration's proposal and the House-passed bill would enlarge the income gulf. An analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, using the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy model, finds that the top one percent of taxpayers would receive 44 percent of the tax cut benefits under the House-passed bill to create a new 10-percent bracket and reduce marginal rates. This 44 percent share of the benefits is more than two and one-half times the share of after-tax income these individuals receive." source
So we should be asking Smith and Jones in your example why Bush isn't helping them with tax cuts like he did the top 1%. Bush is promoting a flat tax that would burden the middle class even more. We should drop things like the death tax, or instances where you are taxed twice or more on something, etc. but it's my obligation to speak out about a recommended proposal that would throw the burden of the system onto the backs of the struggling working class.
And correcting a mistaken use of progressive ideology doesn't make it "Progressivism According to Steve". Ask any progressivist if they want to make everybody earn the same dollar amount and they will tell you no. It's about setting the record straight.
77 - Steve S
Forgot to say - A flat tax that is a percentage of income has the same effect. Most of the rich get their money from interest, savings, stocks, principle, etc. not things that are considered wages or income. So it'd be possible for someone to make 30 million and pay no taxes.
78 - DrPat
Let's see... Taking more from Guy A to fund Guy B in Guy B's quest to provide a Guy-A-level education without first working for/acquiring/lucking into the funds to do that any other way is not viewed as confiscatory to Guy A's life, efforts and abilities. (Forget whether it is progressive or not, please! No one else here has labeled it progressive, but Mike contends [and I agree] that it is neither fair nor moral - that it is, in fact, graduated slavery.)
There are some things that we all use or have access to, that are in the appropriate purview of government to manage and all of us to fund via taxes: the courts and contracts systems, definitely; federal police, perhaps; local and state police, certainly.
But when the goal is equality of outcome ("Someone who lives in a one bedroom apartment is entitled to the same quality of education as a person who lives in a 2 story house..."), and the method is to penalize Guy A to fund Guy B whether or not Guy A actually uses LESS of the resource, that's graduated slavery. It espresses exactly the sense of entitlement that I pointed out.
And I don't expect the thought to get past that wall with you this time either.
79 - Steve S
when the goal is equality of outcome
well, the thought that this isn't what progressivism is about, didn't get past you.
Equal Opportunity is a path, not a final outcome. It's one of the main foundations of our Democracy. Some people may choose to not utilize that opportunity though. It's at their loss though, few miss the opportunity. Most are not given access to it, whether they are homeless, illiterate, handicapped, or unable to communicate with most people in their new country, etc. Most are denied equal opportunity, instead of refusing it.
As far as your reference to slavery, all I can say is that I won't be able to see it. Slavery is against your will and imposing upon you by you being unable to get away. The government isn't forcing you to stay. Taxes are a requirement as being a part of the community, of partaking of all it's resources, whether it is the electricity to light your 7 mansions, or to get the benefit of prescription medications, many of which were funded by governmental loans to scientists, etc. If you think a tax is a penalty akin to slavery, then you need to get away from all governments. Of course in such a place, how much is the dollar worth?
With all the advancements made possible by our government, should Guy A have the wealth to pay a little bit more than Guy B, by pooling their money and working together, they both can get it farther than going it alone. And that includes Guy A.
A Democracy is NOT slavery.
80 - DrPat
Nope, didn't make it through that solid sense of entitlement. Well, that's the benefit of pessimism. I'm never disappointed.
Blather on, Steve S. I'm going to bed in one of my seven mansions, with the excellent education (screwed out of eight poor guys who lived down the street) to enliven my dreams.
End sarcasm. End conversation.
81 - Steve S
with the excellent education (screwed out of eight poor guys who lived down the street)
But now actually, because of public education held in place to sustain a middle class, that didn't happen.
82 - Mike Kole
Steve- While you said, "A Democracy is NOT slavery," it would have been more accurate to have said that it is not *necessarily* slavery... but it can be.
Recall the Ben Franklin quote, "Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner".
Democracy is merely majority rule. If the majority votes to strip one of one's income, you bet it's slavery. If the majority votes to enforce Jim Crow, you bet it's slavery. It isn't dignified in any way whatsoever just because a vote took place.
So, as I said earlier, government *is* force.
I've often made this thread personal, not in order to hurt or insult you Steve, but to try to have you see a principle at work. Mainly, the same majority rule that takes the income tax is the same majority rule that denies equality to gay partnerships.
I am very interested in the consistent application of principle. My greatest struggle is always just to get people to see that the application is very inconsistent in our society, and is in any true democracy. This is why I am an advocate of the democratic republic, and not of the mere democracy. In the latter, we could cook up a scheme whereby the tax burden is shifted to men named George. All in favor? Instead, what we have is a system where the tax burden is shifted to the wealthiest 5%. All in favor?
No one really cares to defend the rich, because... well, they're rich! They've got it made! We'll call it them doing their fair share, and call it a day. But as we've seen, there is such things as bracket creep and relative wealth in incomes, so in fact, the middle class often gets pounded in the name of soaking the rich. Oops.
I like taxes that are fair and that achieve the limited goals they are intended to serve. For instance, a gasoline tax is an excellent tax. It serves to fund highway repair and management, and is only paid by those who use gasoline, thus highways, and at a level that is directly proportional to usage.
The worst part about being middle class is that you tend to carry a high tax burden without much in the way of direct return. For instance, each person gets the same amount of incidental benefit from the fire department when there are no fires, but each pays a different rate based on the value of property. Fair? Each American gets the same relative return on the military that defends our country, but each pays differently based on income. Fair?
No. I do not propose a flat tax. That's still a sliding scale. In the same way that one person gets one vote, I believe that one person should get a flat tax bill. No loopholes, no sliding scales. One person, one fee.
83 - bhw
In the same way that one person gets one vote, I believe that one person should get a flat tax bill. No loopholes, no sliding scales. One person, one fee.
Mike, can you elaborate? How would this system work? Does a child count as a person in the tax system; in other words, does a family with 4 kids pay a fee for each kid? I'm thinking that they should, since those kids use the common services that taxes go toward. Are the kid fees lower than the adult fees?
Also, how high/low would you set this fee, say, for federal taxes? Would anyone qualify for an exemption based on income? If not, how could a single person who earns, say, $15K/year afford the same fee as Ted Kennedy? Would the fee be so low that literally anyone could afford it?
Also, we would obviously have to cut back on a TON of spending. Instead of trying to list all of those cuts, it's probably easier to list what you think tax spending should be limited to. Could you draw up a quick, fairly complete list? [Or is that another post?]
84 - Steve S
"A Democracy is NOT slavery," it would have been more accurate to have said that it is not *necessarily* slavery... but it can be.
Apparently, this is the 'wall' that I cannot see over, Mike. Slavery is involuntary, from which you cannot escape. If slaves in the past, ran from the farm, they got shot. Slaves in Africa lived in chains. There was no freedom. If you don't like the cost of citizenship, then you are free to go away. THAT is NOT slavery. You join a country by becoming a citizen, like you join a club by becoming a member. It takes dues, you pay for your membership. But you are free to go at any time, to no longer be a member, to no longer get any benefit out of the club, etc. That is more like citizenship than slavery is, sorry.
You go back to the analogy of gay marriage, hoping I will connect on some base emotional level that way. But I cannot, Mike. The equality of my family is being denied, but no, I never for a moment see the lack of recognition of my family as remotely equivalent to slavery. Being denied a Social Security payment or denied the automatic transfer of property upon certain events, etc. is wrong, but it's not slavery.
But as we've seen, there is such things as bracket creep and relative wealth in incomes, so in fact, the middle class often gets pounded in the name of soaking the rich
The tax system needs a major overhaul, and could be dramatically simplified. I'd never dispute that. The proposals currently put forth from the Republicans and the Libertarians both harm the middle class and shift more of the tax burden onto them, so I don't support them. Sorry. When you consider wiping out deductions to put on an 'absolute' flat tax, as you propose, and people lose their deductions for health care, their mortgage, etc. because everything is flat, then a drop from a current percentage to a new one could still end up making the middle class pay more than they did before. Because it will be a percentage of a higher amount. I just see a lot of problems with the proposed solutions put forth right now.
85 - Big Time Patriot
"I believe that one person should get a flat tax bill. No loopholes, no sliding scales. One person, one fee."
Now, that sounds interesting, except that of course, Ken Lay got a lot more out of the government than I did. Ken got governement to change laws to "de-regulate" his favorite con game in the field of energy. Government isn't likely to change any laws to help my business directly. So if me and Kenny Boy paid the same taxes, I'd be subsidizing his huge gains due to Republican influence on his behalf. Don't know, doesn't seem to pass the "smell test" to me...
86 - andy marsh
I vote for a national sales tax...as long as I can keep shopping at the tax free commissary and the Navy Exchange!
87 - Mike Kole
Steve said, "If you don't like the cost of citizenship, then you are free to go away."
Wow. My way or the highway. Weren't you recently criticizing RJ or Andy Marsh for using exactly that kind of reasoning, right after the elections?
Steve said, "Slavery is involuntary, from which you cannot escape. If slaves in the past, ran from the farm, they got shot."
How is that different from taxes, which are also not voluntary, from which I cannot escape? If I run from the IRS, I will be arrested, tried, and imprisoned?
The more you go on, the less respectable the positions become.
88 - Mike Kole
Patriot, I'm accused of going to extremes to make my points, but you go straight for Ken Lay, a criminal who had his company's books cooked so that he could fleece his shareholders and give himself huge bonuses. Don't make me out to be his defender.
Men like Ken Lay go to government in search of corporate welfare precisely because they pay so much in taxes. They believe that they pay in, so they should get some return. If Ken Lay paid the same in tax as Mike Kole, he wouldn't have ever gotten 15 seconds with a legislator.
But as for Ken Lay getting more out of government than you, that's true: He gets his three squares and an hour of exercise every day.
89 - bhw
Mike, are you saying that nepotism will go away if everyone pays a flat tax fee? Because I don't think Ken Lay got special attention for his industry because of how much he personally pays in taxes. He got it because of his relationship with the people in power in our government.
90 - Steve S
Mike, let's look at your proposal.
You might not want to be Ken Lay's defender, but you've got to realize that depending on who's in power, determines who benefits. I would say it's safe to venture that Haliburton stockholders and CEO's do better in a Bush administration, than they did in a Clinton administration.
So if we want to adhere to the principle that everybody puts the same amount into the government, should we not adhere to the same principle that everybody gets the same out of the government? Let's say that the government passes a ruling that retirement needs to be privatized. So people need to go invest their own money. Investment firms stand to make billions, which is why they are a big proponent of privatization. Or the government, on the advice of the CDC determines that there is a virulent strain of flu and more vaccines are needed. A government ruling on imports favors one company over another and someone makes millions off of the vaccine decision. But that person put in the same percentage amount as a person on the poverty line. So where's the millions for the person on the poverty line? Let's be fair. If a student gets a 30k loan, does that allow a homeless person to get 30k for rent? If two citizens do not get EXACTLY the same FROM the government, then is that not slavery by your definition?
Here's some rough numbers, 300 million citizens, assuming 40k average salary. 300mil x 40k x .05% = 600 million dollars income for the government for a year. There's something like 1,000 billionaires, so while they might pay more, there are far more than 1,000 people who wouldn't make enough to contribute to taxes at all. And children are in that 300mil too. What's the final tally?
Since it's your proposal, can you refine the numbers? How much do you project your tax structure to bring into the government? What is your methodology to determine your numbers? If the number really is under 1 billion, can you elaborate on how you expect that to cover everything from the salaries of law enforcement, public school teachers AND the national defense of the country?
91 - Mike Kole
bhw- No, nepotism will probably not go away. Humans are still humans, and humans still like to show favoritisms where they can.
Of course, that's exactly one of the major underpinnings to and problems inherent in any redistribution of wealth.
Steve, you're partially right on Ken Lay. It isn't because Lay personally paid a load in taxes that he had the ear of legislators. It's because the company that he was CEO for paid a mega-load in taxes. Same principle at work, though: I pay a load of tax (either personally or via my corporation, and I want a return on it; after all, it isn't fair that I just pay.
Does it not seem reasonable to expect that if one class of person or corporation is subject to high taxes, that they will have a deep interest in lobbying for a break? Likewise, does it not seem reasonable to expect that since there is a pool of largesse available, those who have contributed largely to it will have a great sense of having a stake in determining the distribution of that largesse? I think that this is very reasonable thinking, and if you don't like the results of this very reasonable thinking, then something has to be changed to not create these outcomes.
Since people always chase what they believe to be their best interests; and since corporations exist for the purpose of drawing in money, until the premise of an available pool of largesse is eradicated, corporate behavior will not change. In other words, as long as there are political goodies to be handed out, people will line up to get them.
I do not want government to merely be a game of determining which special interest gets the goodies in this four-year cycle. That merely perpetuates the system we have, whereby corporate interests spend huge sums of money backing both sides in the hopes that they can draw back on their investments later. Steve, I recall you bemoaning this kind of influence on the election, but in the comments above, you've very much argued for this system.
I know that you have a distrust of corporate power. I respect that very much. But at the same time, I get that corporations would become imminently less powerful if there was no power available to them via government. This is why I distrust government power so much: it can and will be corrupted all the more by corporate power. Corporatations really cannot coerce on their own in the way that government can.
Again, I like government models like the gasoline tax. I pay for the gas I use, thereby paying for my fair share of the maintenance of the roads. Likewise public utilities like water. I use 9 yards of water, the meter spins, and I pay for 9 yards of water.
Steve brought up retirement, so I will address that.
I don't like privatization of social security, as many Republicans do. Your reaction against the Bush proposal is one that I agree with to a point. There can be no doubt that Wall Street wants the plan that would compel contributions into a plan that would result in commissions to their brokerages. It's just so much more cronyism. So, I don't support either the current system or the proposed 'reform'. Either way, it's compulsion. I think that it is smart and correct to prepare for retirement, I just don't believe that it's right to force it by law.
Interestingly, all of the examples you offered involved government cronyism or compulsion, all of which I oppose. I can't help but get the impression that you don't see many places for the market to deliver the goods and services that people want and need.
On a one person, one bill plan, I would see a government draw up a budget, as it does now, and mete out the bills. I don't ever see it happening, since it's way too honest. Everybody would see what the real cost is and who shoulders the burden and who sucks up the benefit, and that would be very dangerous because then the middle class would see how badly they've been played the sucker.
92 - Mike Kole
So, Steve- what about that 'if you don't like it you can leave' argument you made previously? Are you standing by that?
93 - Mike Kole
Damn! Steve, I can't believe I glossed over this question of yours! It's excellent.
"So if we want to adhere to the principle that everybody puts the same amount into the government, should we not adhere to the same principle that everybody gets the same out of the government?"
Yes we should! That's equality and justice!
I don't think it is just at all that my tax dollars get redistributed to corporations, any more than I find it just that they get redistibuted to anybody else. Governing is supposed to be the management of a society's truly common needs, and those that cannot be privately managed, and nothing more.
The courts, police, and military cannot be privately managed. They might easily be used wrongly against another if they were. (We see that they can still be wrongly used when publicly managed, but it is less likely.) Roads and infrastructure can be privately managed, but it is less efficient to have toll booths at every intersection than to have gas taxes.
But managing sports arenas and convention centers? Producing the arts? Producing media? Paying farmers to produce food only to store it in a warehouse? Where does it stop?
As long as tax money is taken from all and thrown into one hopper, there won't ever be accountability. It's too much to look at. Most people never think about it at all. It's just the price of being a citizen, so I'll just pay it.
94 - bhw
I don't think Steve gave you the "love it or leave it" treatment. He was explaining why he didn't think mandatory taxation was the same thing as slavery. One of the many things slaves didn't have was the freedom to leave. We all can leave if we want to; we seem to be staying by choice.
I agree that taxation is not like slavery. The comparisons don't add up. We *are* free to stay or go, as we choose. We are not owned by other individiuals, as if we were livestock or other property. Most of us can marry who we want, and we can all be assured that we won't be sold away from our families. We can all go to school, church, and to the mall. Hell, we can even choose NOT to work.
I understand where you're coming from, that we're forced to pay taxes -- under threat of a prison sentence -- even for services/programs we're opposed to. That's true. But it's not slavery.
95 - Steve S
bhw is correct in 94. My comments about loving it or leaving it, wasn't from me, but what is considered proper behavior in a social environment, in all human interactions. When you look at all cultures, even the 'communal' ones, where all members of the tribe raise the children equally, or a harsher one where you are forced to contribute at the end of a whip, in some how, in some way, everyone is expected to contribute to a society. Most societies have adopted the taxation way of contribution as money can be collectively distributed where it needs to go, for the common good of the populace. Note that this can mean from time to time a distribution of the money towards a common good of the populace, that an individual within that populace might not agree with.
It's not MY invention, it's the way the world works. Taxation can be imperfect, and I agree that what we have now needs an overhaul, I'm not defending 'more taxes' and I'm not defending leaving things as they currently are.
But, Mike, if your question in comment 92, is asking me if I have changed my opinion on anything, the answer is no.
Progressivism isn't about 'keeping things as they are', we're open to refining things. We acknowledge that Democracy is still young, in terms of world history. It's still being invented practically. Taxes could undergo a lot of work and we all can benefit, I don't think a progressive would deny that. But if you look at most of my argument, it is about the protection of the middle class. There are certain factors that are required to have a middle class. Free education is one, because that is the only way that a person can move from the poor end of the spectrum up to the rich end. A middle class enables this type of movement. If you just have rich and poor, there is no way (short of a lottery win) that one person can move on the spectrum. So there is no democracy without a middle class.
So I do not support any ideological change that hampers, hinders, decays, destroys, etc. the middle class. Flat taxes have consistently been shown to do so. Nobody so far, has shown me a plan that does otherwise. In terms of your own plan, other than the number 5%, I haven't seen any more specifics. We need to know how much revenue is projected for the government so we can have a better understanding of what kinds of social institutions will be staying and going. Some institutions, I believe are vital to the maintenance of the middle class.
Steve, I recall you bemoaning this kind of influence on the election, but in the comments above, you've very much argued for this system.
There are things wrong with our current system. But no new ideas that I have seen, make the situation better. An ideology might improve 'this' or 'that' fact, but usually comes at a higher cost in regards to something else. Yeah, I bemoan a lot of things the way they currently are, I have not been convinced that a flat tax is an improvement.
One of the things I don't like with the current system is how Repubs use the tax laws for their own personal gain. I just heard from someone who had bought an SUV that he can write half of it off as a business expense. The Repubs had passed a law allowing all large SUVs to be written off as business expsense, now that they all have SUVs, they are closing off the exemption at the end of the year. It was his own words. I bemoan this type of stuff, but am not willing to change it to a situation that makes things worse on the middle class.
But managing sports arenas and convention centers? Producing the arts? Producing media? Paying farmers to produce food only to store it in a warehouse? Where does it stop?
It needs refinement, agreed. As far as the farmer situation goes, it doesn't seem to make much sense when you look at it solely like that, but agri-subsidies are in place for a reason. If you advocate doing away with them, you need to address the problems they have solved, and how you will insure that those problems don't arise again.
In terms of the arts, we will just have to differ. A culturally enriched middle class is given access to museums, literature, etc. and is enhanced/educated in ways the elite take for granted. Arts are closely aligned with education to me, knowledge doesn't always have to come from a book. Also, I view giving an artist money more closely aligned with giving someone money to start up their business, rather than the conservative ideology that you're giving them money to create a piece of art that you find morally objectionable.
My point about making sure that everybody gets the exact same amount 'out of' the government was the fact that that cannot be achieved. Nor should it. A person who can only live on the health care provided socially, because he can't afford it personally, should not be limited because he's 'matched' another person's school loan.
Also, removing the concept of lobbying and money in politics does not remove nepotism.
96 - Mike Kole
It sure read like the love it or leave it treatment. Didn't like the results of the vote? You can leave. Don't like being taxed? You can leave... Sure seems the same to me, and every bit as callous.
I would say that taxes aren't slavery, but they are *like* it in the premise that the first claim to the fruit of your labor goes to someone other than
you.
This whole exercise has been merely a consideration of one's economic tolerances. I want people to place our system on a scale of 1 to 100, with
absolute slavery being a 1, and absolute economic freedom being a 100. I
think we're somewhere between 60-65. Our other freedoms, such as freedom of
movement especially, help mask that it isn't a 95. The point of it is that
it isn't a 95, and that furthermore, many people would rather that it was a
30.
When I was in Europe, I was astounded at how the Danes would actually brag
about how they were taxed at an average rate of 78%. An average! But, if you
consider that the Danes and most people throughout the world are coming from
a tradition of serfdom or slavery, getting to keep 22% all while getting
universal health care, education, pension, and other cradle-to-grave service does seem like a huge step forward, and to me kind of justified the brag.
However, most Americans (no need to point out the obvious exceptions) come
from the tradition (whether or not the reality) of near-absolute economic
freedom. They certainly labor under the mistaken belief that there is 90-95%
economic freedom.
It's something, Steve. Your orientation to life is so very much government oriented. There is no shortage of art without government sponsorship. Ever been to Soho? You can't go to all of the galleries in that one part of Manhattan in a month and meaningfully look at everything. But more than that, I'm not looking at the funding the arts as an either/or proposition with funding businesses. I'm saying that *neither* should be funded.
There are two ways to level the playing field- by taxing and redistributing to everybody... and taxing and redistributing to nobody. Either way. Which one costs less? Which one causes less dispute?
97 - Steve S
It sure read like the love it or leave it treatment
Isn't there some southern conservative statement - America, love it or leave it? I'm not advocating you leave, Mike. I'm saying the basic premise of most any societal grouping involves a contribution. Nobody likes a freeloader. This is where the concept of taxes come in.
You said yourself, some things are necessary via taxation, like sanitation and defense. So if someone is against your tax plan, does that mean they are subject to slavery still?
You know, there is an ideology that is absolute in it's fairness from the government. Everybody puts in and takes out the exact same thing. It's called communism.
Your scale puts slavery on one end and economic freedom on the other. For there to be true slavery , Mike, you have to lose a lot more than your paycheck. I still think this whole line of thought is wrong. But to go along with your scale, I would put it at about the same amount 65-70, higher for the richer people, maybe up to an 80, and lower for the poor.
Your orientation to life is so very much government oriented.
Well, Mike, that's one way of looking at it, however my perception of an ideal government isn't solely for 'my life'. That's a key difference in ideologies.
Yes, SoHo might have a lot of art. I've never been. I've never been able to afford to fly across country for a tour of art galleries. I would say probably 95% of America can't do that either. By putting a museum in Little Rock, or in Cheyenne, a lot more people have their lives enriched and they learn a lot more about history, culture, etc. than just SoHo-ites. This is one institution out of many that helps them to enrich and better their life so they are more capable of achieving the American dream.
I truly believe a Democracy is best for us all Mike, it's the basis for my ideologies just like you have an economic basis for yours. In order for a democracy to thrive, there has to be the opportunity to better youself. History has shown us, in EVERY example of government, that when there is no middle class, there is no equal opportunity for all. The poor cannot then educate themselves, they cannot learn and accomplish the pursuit of happiness when all they can do is struggle to come up with a days meal. We, as Americans, decided we wanted a perfect ideal of a society, a democracy. So for 200 years, we have put in place the means for that to be accessible to all. Since democracy is so new to the world, it is always undergoing refinement. It will always need to, to accommodate changing cultures, to capitalize on immerging technologies (the internet could be a great way for the poor to learn for example). WIth such development, there are going to be rough edges that we work together to resolve. But we always need to keep in mind what kinds of societies there are, and what methods are needed to achieve those societies. For a democracy, one of the key components is a middle class. So while I dispute any analogy with the word 'entitlement' which conservatives love to bandy about when talking about American Democracy, if I HAD to prioritize, Mike? I'd have to say that a middle class is a requirement of democracy, but a class of elite is not.
If I had 100 million dollars, I would be absolutely happy to give more in taxes than a person who made 50k. I would consider it a privilege to be able to give back so much, to the societal ideology that enabled me to capture the American dream of having such a good life.
I have to say that it's MHO, that it's not a 'tolerance level for government' that is a key component in ideological differences. It is a difference based on Good Samaritanism, community spirit, wanting to 'make the world a better place for us all, not just myself', selfishness vs. unselfishness, etc,
Mike, do you mean to tell me that if you made 100 million dollars, and (picking a random number out) if you only got to keep 45 million of it, and the rest went thru taxes back into the community, you'd feel shortchanged? You'd feel like you were subject to slavery? It's incomprehensible to me. Just differing viewpoints.
Also, Mike, to get back to your tax proposal, anybody would really have to have the numbers before they could jump onboard, right? When we vote on tax increases, we're told that it will raise X amount of dollars over X amount of years, etc. and what the money is going for.
Should someone advocate a 5% flat tax across the board, we should know exactly how much revenue that will be for the government, over how long a period of time it should be phased in (because let's face it, you do it in one year and utter pandemonium sets in. Millions of federal workers alone would suddenly be unemployed). How will the remaining money be redistributed? How much would you propose national defense get?
People should know these answers before they should jump on an ideology. I'm not trying to 'assault' or 'scream' at you, but that should just be a given.
98 - andy marsh
I guess it's ok when a liberal, I mean progressive, says love it or leave it?
I do remember getting a serious ration for saying that a while back...and some of it was from you Steve, you were Boom back then, but you still chimed in with the evil one and attacked the hell out of me for saying it!
99 - Steve S
But Andy, please look at the context. I'm not saying that Progressivism is saying 'love it or leave it'.
Consider a communal tribe. If somebody doesn't contribute, they are exiled. Consider a purely capitalistic society. If someone doesn't contribute, they end up on the street holding onto all they've achieved, right?
I'm saying 'humanity' says that, not just one ideology. This is in the context of contributing to society. When the phrase is used against me, it is used in regards to a violation of civil rights. A significant difference.
And again, it's not ME saying it. I already said I don't want Mike to leave. Okay people? Let's not latch onto key phrases and ignore the meat of the argument. So Andy, yes, I did get on you for saying it, but I forget the context of it, however, I'm not telling MIke to leave the country!
One of the main reasons we founded this country was to get away from oppressive taxation without representation. Yes, taxes can go too far and there is room for improvement with our current system. but I do not think that 100% economic freedom was the thought of our Founding Fathers. We have our civil liberties, and we hold them dear and constantly fight for them, but we don't have 100% freedom in regards to civil liberties either. There is no such thing in regards to ANY form of government, as 100% freedom in everything.
Another thing that should be addressed in scaling back on the government so much is a return of landlordism. Buying a home and/or a car is very much a situation where you have to prove to the business you are a worthy customer. Unlike shopping for food or paper towels. The government through a variety of means, makes it possible for millions to get a home or car when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Should the government be scaled back so it no longer can afford to be in that business, not only will millions have no means to get a home anymore, but it will be the return of landlordism.