Oh wow, I turn my attention from this thread for a day and the squirrels really come out.
On the top 20% of the income distribution paying 80% of taxes: that is true. It is also true, however, that the top 20% of the income distribution earns 50% of the income. It has rather more than 50% of the disposable income and of the wealth. So, even if we had a totally non-redistributive tax system, they would be paying at least 50% of the income taxes; only one-third of their tax bill, at most, is redistributive. From Adam Smith on down, every serious economist for the past couple of centuries has realized that we need a progressive tax system, so the only real question is how much more than 50% of the income tax the top 20% should have to pay. Thus the real story here is not tax inequality, it is income inequality -- the cause of many of the US's economic woes. We wouldn't need such a progressive tax system if the fraud of trickle-down economics hadn't left incomes so unequal.
Of course, you guys crying that the minimum wage is too low -- that even the poorest workers in the economy are too rich -- is just absurd. For the past 8 years we have enjoyed decent prosperity while middle and lower class wages declined. How is that possible? Simple: the increase in GDP is absorbed by the upper classes. Surprise -- it doesn't trickle down. If you are willing to tolerate income inequality that no other developed economy would, don't be surprised at (1) having to fund most of the government and (2) having the wheels fall off the economy when the workers just can't afford roofs over their heads any more.
A2C wrote:
No matter what, it's a mistake to raise taxes on anybody, and Bush's tax cuts were a step in the right direction. Now with B.O. were taking a step backwards by raising the taxes more.
Here's what taxes pay for: BIGGER GOVERNMENT.
Utterly wrong. More taxes do not make government grow; public demand for government services does. Reagan and the Bushes proved that government gets bigger whether you raise taxes or not. The only difference is that if you raise taxes, you pay for government, and if you don't, you go into debt -- which severely hamstrings your ability to do things like finance ridiculous wars, fund stimulus packages, and other useful stuff. Like I said before, your choice is between tax-and-spend versus borrow-and-spend. Tax-and-spend (i.e., Clinton) is by far the more responsible course.
I hear several of you crying for smaller government. Get over it, it isn't going to happen. The people demand more from their government, and the Republicans have taught them that they can have it without paying for it. Like Bill says, you small-government boosters actually want big government too. When someone suggests to cut the most obviously bloated area of the government -- the military -- by, say, 25% or 50%, you all scream because that's your favorite part. And every other part is someone's favorite as well.
On Fannie, Freddie, and the mortgage crisis: The way you guys reach around the obvious causes -- a climate of permissiveness in lending supported by both parties, but encouraged by the total absence of regulatory oversight over the past 8 years -- to try to pluck causes from the Clinton years is really kind of comical.
RyanShort1 wrote:
My personal biggest fear is that we are now to a point, where Marxist-run state education (this is indisputable) has raised a dumbed-down generation (or two or three now) that cannot see Marxism right in front of them, and indeed find it attractive and reasonable.
Ryan, your statement goes beyond disputable; it is laughable. I think you have no idea what Marxism is. Adam Smith, for example, supported and is even credited with originating some of the ideas you consider Marxist.
August