3 ms·

I agree, part of the argument of the rich is that they "deserve" to keep their riches, but what the Sunday morning shows and right wing blog comments may not hi

I agree, part of the argument of the rich is that they "deserve" to keep their riches, but what the Sunday morning shows and right wing blog comments may not highlight (I don't watch those shows or read the blogs) is the complete argument for why the rich should keep their wealth, regardless of if they "deserve" to keep it. Of course greed and self-interest is part of the motivation for making those arguments, but most free market economists and supporters truly believe that by allowing the rich to keep their wealth that all of society will benefit. Rich, poor, everyone. You may disagree, lots of people do since at face value it is counter-intuitive, but my point is just that a lot, probably the majority of free market supporters, actually do have the benefit of all of society in mind. They'd say that the 4% increase in marginal tax rate would actually be detrimental to the poor. Again, you may have excellent arguments for why it is better for the government to take and spend that money, but they have logical counter-arguments.

kenjackson 16y ago
I don't disagree that a rate increase _might_ be a bad thing (although I don't think it is). But I do think, that as Krugman points out, this is not the current argument. In Reagan's era they would pitch trickle down as how everyone benefits from these tax cuts. The actual stated goal was to make life better for everyone, but starting from the top. The current stated goal from the right is that the rich deserve the money, and the poor do NOT deserve. Not that the tax cuts will have some side benefit to the poor. Rather that we need to keep the money out of the hands of the poor. This is why the constantly use the code word "welfare" when talking to their base. Again, there is a very rational argument to be had here. In fact, I think a rational argument would be a very boring one for most people in the US. But I think the reason that everyone is up in arms is not due to their passion for capitalism. But rather I think there's a fundamental belief that there are certain groups of people unworthy of _their_ money.

kenjackson 16y ago

I don't disagree that a rate increase _might_ be a bad thing (although I don't think it is). But I do think, that as Krugman points out, this is not the current argument. In Reagan's era they would pitch trickle down as how everyone benefits from these tax cuts. The actual stated goal was to make life better for everyone, but starting from the top. The current stated goal from the right is that the rich deserve the money, and the poor do NOT deserve. Not that the tax cuts will have some side benefit to the poor. Rather that we need to keep the money out of the hands of the poor. This is why the constantly use the code word "welfare" when talking to their base. Again, there is a very rational argument to be had here. In fact, I think a rational argument would be a very boring one for most people in the US. But I think the reason that everyone is up in arms is not due to their passion for capitalism. But rather I think there's a fundamental belief that there are certain groups of people unworthy of _their_ money.