Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca
that's fine. we can agree on that, on both sides.
we remain stuck with the "Lucy paradox." The Dems have promised "if you increase taxes now, we'll cut spending later" several times. The Repubs have gone along with it. The taxes went up, the spending did not go down.
With the resurgence in economic conservatism, the battle cry has been reversed: "if you want to increase taxes, you first have to cut spending as a good faith down payment, after which we can then increase taxes."
For me personally, it seems to me that both of those positions are off target. It seems more important that the tax system be rational, simple, and promote growth as its higher priorities. I don't mind using a wealth tax for redistribution; it seems counter-productive however to use an income tax with redistribution as a primary objective.
I agree with most of the goals of the progressive agenda, it is merely the methods that I find problematic. A big part of the problem is that there are plenty of things people will do voluntarily that they will resist doing if they feel they are being forced. Paradoxical, perhaps, yet that appears to be how human nature works.
Putting taxes at Clinton era rates means no excuses. If the budget could be balanced under those rates, it can be again. Meaning, the revenue those rates bring in. That's what the gubmint has to spend. Now, you are correct (did I say that?) in that there will need to be spending reductions.
that's fine. we can agree on that, on both sides.
we remain stuck with the "Lucy paradox." The Dems have promised "if you increase taxes now, we'll cut spending later" several times. The Repubs have gone along with it. The taxes went up, the spending did not go down.
With the resurgence in economic conservatism, the battle cry has been reversed: "if you want to increase taxes, you first have to cut spending as a good faith down payment, after which we can then increase taxes."
For me personally, it seems to me that both of those positions are off target. It seems more important that the tax system be rational, simple, and promote growth as its higher priorities. I don't mind using a wealth tax for redistribution; it seems counter-productive however to use an income tax with redistribution as a primary objective.
I agree with most of the goals of the progressive agenda, it is merely the methods that I find problematic. A big part of the problem is that there are plenty of things people will do voluntarily that they will resist doing if they feel they are being forced. Paradoxical, perhaps, yet that appears to be how human nature works.