Posted on 12/22/2002 12:22:53 PM PST by Torie
I could be convinced that the remedy you suggest in the legal profession for the past treatment of black Americans is just but I'm unconvinced that it should apply only to the legal profession.
Perhaps we should drop it. The topic seems to have become the first through the fifth rails.
But then I am fairly liberal on tax policy matters. The richer should pay more.
Maybe we could start with Mark Rich, the billionaire who was pardoned by Bill Clinton for $250 million in tax evasion. And no, my friend, a specific, concrete example does not fall under the categorization of 'bon mot.' It's not a matter of my opinion as to whether Mr. Rich (what an ironic name!) was liberated by Mr. Clinton for this amount of tax evasion. He actually done did it. It really happened. Reality is what separates the facts from the bandwidth-wasting bon mots.
. . . Maybe we could also pass federal laws requiring companies to show citizens what they actually pay in taxes. For example, Social Security and withholding taxes are itemized on my paycheck for only 50% of the amount actually paid. The other fifty percent is paid by the company which employees me, yet even though it appears on their budget as a cost of hiring people, I don't see it itemized on my paycheck . . . it appears the government is getting away with taxation without visible representation.
Perhaps also landlords should be required to show what proportion of their rent goes to pay property taxes. That would be interesting. I wonder if fewer urban-dwelling poor people would be so enthusiastic about supporting a civic 'convention center' if they knew that they were each going to end up paying hundreds of dollars for the construction out of their rent check.
Corporate and business taxes also get passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. Perhaps there should be an accounting there as well. If 'corporate tax' really translates into 'taxing rich and poor at the same rate through higher product prices,' then it doesn't seem quite as egalitarian a policy as Tom Daschle and Teddy Kennaquidick would have it to be.
I agree, the poor pay a lot of taxes. As one of the working poor, I would like to see liberals explain why their emphatic shouting for 'tax the rich' in practice ultimately and invariably means secretly taxing the poor and middle classes, while limosine liberals seem to always grow richer and richer.
No poor people running the New York Times, hmmmmm? (Or is that a 'bon mot?' Well, better bon than mal, I always say!)
What issues are you not a liberal on? How can you defend forcing people to "invest" into a system that will pay them a zero percent return?
OK. You proposed a remedy and apparently I missed the basis for the remedy. Can you elucidate?
This is true ... but if they keep turning up the heat, however gradually, the goose will eventually be cooked.
Of course ... a certain amount of Black Market activity will become ligitimate when taxes are lowered.
I was listening to Bob Brinker this afternoon. Bob thought it would be more effective to give tax cuts to us working stiffs. He didn't think giving the filthy rich a tax cut would do much to get the economy going. The rich would just put new radars on their yachts. Well, the radar makers and radar installers would be happy. The sea lanes might be a little safer.
Might as well base a Tax structure on height and weight, that is as fair as what you prescribe.
How does "They can afford it" work? Who is the judge?
Do they get the same services as the "poor", i.e. Food stamps, Pell Grants, W.I.C., Earned Income Tax Credit, Fannie Mae et al?
If I can use your explanation, then the "Rich" should get 10 votes to every "Poor" person's 1 vote, since the Rich pay an unreasonable percentage more...after all, they can "afford it", right?
Perhaps that is the answer, to keep the "poor" from being able to vote to pick the "Rich's" pockets at will.
Someone mentioned envy. I am afraid that shot rather misses the mark.
Is "Guilt" a closer shot to the mark, then?
Of course, since the Commies are now calling themselves "Progressives," they're starting to become consistent when they call the income tax "progressive."
Now if we can henceforth refrain from using word "progressive" in any of its older, positive connotations, we may eventually get people to hear it as a political curse word.
Something like that has already happened with the terms "Socialst" and "Communist." The collectivists, the mass killers, can continue to scurry under the latest high-sounding appellation, but if we remain vigilant we will eventually flush them out, every time.
That, it would seem to me, would be a good reason to keep government out of the health insurance business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.