2 ms·
OK, I'll accept that you weren't intending to suggest that the government has primary claim on your income but you seem unaware of how your framing has been use
by gwright 14y ago
OK, I'll accept that you weren't intending to suggest that the government has primary claim on your income but you seem unaware of how your framing has been used by others to actually make that claim.
I can accept theoretically that you can separate the progressive structure of the federal income tax from spending decisions but in reality it is pretty hard to solve our budget problems by simply taxing the 'rich'--at least if you use the $250,000 figure that is most commonly used.
Here is a nice calculator you can use to see the difficulty: http://splitwise.com/taxes/ http://splitwise.com/taxes/
- ianb 14y agoNow we're demanding that progressivity must balance the budget too? This is car salesman accounting, muddling unrelated choices together to distract from individual choices that can be rationally considered. You keep giving these pundit talking points – the talking points of pundits have been rehashed enough, we shouldn't be using them here, it's not a productive form of discussion. Are we men or are we pundits? I, sir, am a man! ;)
- gwright 14y agoHuh? I'm not at all suggesting that the budget deficit can/should be solved by tweaking the progressivity of the federal tax system. In fact I'm saying the opposite--it is very hard to solve the budget deficit in that way because what we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.