Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
As I think about all of this, it strikes me that this debate, from my side anyway, is driven, not so much by the current absolute numbers of taxation, but by the knowledge that, no matter how high taxes would ever grow, the tone and direction of the other side would never really change.
In short, even if we were back to a 95% tax rate for everyone above middle class, with full funding for every program ever discussed presently, the "needs" would simply expand to make the revenue insufficient.
I can hear it now. "95% is simply not enough. There are still people in Skokie who haven't received their free opera tickets in weeks! WEEKS! The human toll of this neglect is incalculable, and it occurs simply because those with the most refuse to pay their fair share! Those bloodsucking rich don't care if we starve deserving people - and children! - of cultural experience - this regressive system has to go. Those of us who fought in Viet Nam understand human suffering, and we won't rest until we reverse the cruel and regressive tax policies that allow the most well-off to continue unjustly robbing the rest of us, and our children, of the basic entitlement to opera that our forefathers promised to us."
|
You still haven't addressed my point. The tax cuts put in place by the current adminnistration, which were sold as middle class tax relief, did not benefit the middle class. The greatest benefits were bestowed upon the wealthiest Americans, not the ones who do most of the working and spending that keep our economy running and keep the greater number of people employed.
Perhaps it's because you can't answer this charge that you and Club are working so hard at misdirecting the debate.
Why, Bimore, why?
Threaded Mode