This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 at 08:27 and is filed under Think about it..
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
6 Responses to “Is There a Conservative Case for Higher Taxes?”
The only problem with this theory is that there IS no broad middle-class anymore. The Reagan tax subsidies–er, I’m sorry, tax [i]cuts[/i] for the rich have succeeded in pushing the middle-class back down into the lower classes from which they had the temerity to climb.
And you can tax the lower-class any amount you like; you won’t get it. Rather like winning a judgement against a person with no assets: good luck actually collecting anything.
Like it or not, if you want fish, you have to go where the fish are. The top 5% pay 90% because they [i]own[/i] %90–of everything. We tax the rich because the rich have all the money. If they spread it around a little more (GASP! did someone say “redistribution”??) then we could get more money from the so-called “middle” class.
Wow, Dennis, what a ridiculous argument! Reagan’s policies resulted in one of the longest eras of prosperity – broad prosperity at that – in American history. He turned around the abysmal stagflation economy of Jimmy “The Brains of a Peanut” Carter, dropping inflation from 17% to 3% and putting employment at levels rarely seen in peacetime.
“Redistribution of wealth” is really “redistribution of poverty”. Essentially it means making everyone equally miserable while turning over decision making to a handful of elite controllers. (Call them czars, commissars, Divine Leaders, or just the nice catch-all “Crust”, it doesn’t matter because the goals and results are still the same.) Bottom line is that this socialism (or communism) doesn’t work. Ever. It has two fundamental flaws: 1) It completely goes against human nature. What works in an ant colony does not translate well to higher forms of life; and 2) as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, “..(E)ventually, you run out of other people’s money.”
You really should try reading something instead of the “Progressive’s Handbook of Excuses and Phraseology”. Tim has some pretty good articles on here to start with.
Taxing the poor won’t work. No matter how hard you sqeeze the turnip, you won’t get any blood.
Taxing the middle class will simply bite the very teabaggers who are so keen to see the government go bankrupt–counterproductive to the conservative cause.
The rich are taxed because they have all the money. If you want a fish, you have to go where the fish are.
BTW, if you think socialism is against human nature, you don’t know very much about said nature. For the 300,000+ years that modern homo sapiens has been known to have lived on the planet, we have lived in social groups. Co-operation and communal sharing were the only way we survived. Socialism was not the “best” way, it was the ONLY way–up until the eye-blink of history that is the world since Adam Smith wrote his pseudo-scientific book. Hmmm…300K vs 200…which do you think was the more successful system?
Perhaps YOU should read something besides “I’ve got mine, and you’re screwed” by Ayn Rand. I doubt if Tim has any such clippings here, but I’m sure you’ll find something in the Anthropology section of your local library.
More accurately, your statement lies crumpled on the ground.
No one is proposing to tax the poor — as you point out, that wouldn’t work, because they have no money.
As far as taxing the middle class, best address your protests to your Democrat masters, for that is the only way they can climb out of the hole of debt that they’ve put the government into.
The rich don’t have all the money; that fantasy is one that excites emotion among the dimwitted, but doesn’t match reality. As Margaret Thatcher so famously said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. Once you’ve plundered the rich, where will you get the money for all these beneficent government programs?
News flash: ‘Living in social groups’ isn’t the same thing as ‘socialism’. Certainly socialism, in the form of ‘the government owns everything’, is of ancient date; socialism is merely the most recent re-branding of what is more accurately termed ‘slavery’. (Let’s see: Appeal to long history and tradition — smells like a ‘conservative’ to me.)
July 5th, 2011 at 12:17
The only problem with this theory is that there IS no broad middle-class anymore. The Reagan tax subsidies–er, I’m sorry, tax [i]cuts[/i] for the rich have succeeded in pushing the middle-class back down into the lower classes from which they had the temerity to climb.
And you can tax the lower-class any amount you like; you won’t get it. Rather like winning a judgement against a person with no assets: good luck actually collecting anything.
Like it or not, if you want fish, you have to go where the fish are. The top 5% pay 90% because they [i]own[/i] %90–of everything. We tax the rich because the rich have all the money. If they spread it around a little more (GASP! did someone say “redistribution”??) then we could get more money from the so-called “middle” class.
Until then, deal with it.
July 5th, 2011 at 13:47
Wow, Dennis, what a ridiculous argument! Reagan’s policies resulted in one of the longest eras of prosperity – broad prosperity at that – in American history. He turned around the abysmal stagflation economy of Jimmy “The Brains of a Peanut” Carter, dropping inflation from 17% to 3% and putting employment at levels rarely seen in peacetime.
“Redistribution of wealth” is really “redistribution of poverty”. Essentially it means making everyone equally miserable while turning over decision making to a handful of elite controllers. (Call them czars, commissars, Divine Leaders, or just the nice catch-all “Crust”, it doesn’t matter because the goals and results are still the same.) Bottom line is that this socialism (or communism) doesn’t work. Ever. It has two fundamental flaws: 1) It completely goes against human nature. What works in an ant colony does not translate well to higher forms of life; and 2) as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, “..(E)ventually, you run out of other people’s money.”
You really should try reading something instead of the “Progressive’s Handbook of Excuses and Phraseology”. Tim has some pretty good articles on here to start with.
July 5th, 2011 at 23:20
My statement still stands:
Taxing the poor won’t work. No matter how hard you sqeeze the turnip, you won’t get any blood.
Taxing the middle class will simply bite the very teabaggers who are so keen to see the government go bankrupt–counterproductive to the conservative cause.
The rich are taxed because they have all the money. If you want a fish, you have to go where the fish are.
Deal with it.
July 5th, 2011 at 23:26
BTW, if you think socialism is against human nature, you don’t know very much about said nature. For the 300,000+ years that modern homo sapiens has been known to have lived on the planet, we have lived in social groups. Co-operation and communal sharing were the only way we survived. Socialism was not the “best” way, it was the ONLY way–up until the eye-blink of history that is the world since Adam Smith wrote his pseudo-scientific book. Hmmm…300K vs 200…which do you think was the more successful system?
Perhaps YOU should read something besides “I’ve got mine, and you’re screwed” by Ayn Rand. I doubt if Tim has any such clippings here, but I’m sure you’ll find something in the Anthropology section of your local library.
July 6th, 2011 at 09:41
More accurately, your statement lies crumpled on the ground.
No one is proposing to tax the poor — as you point out, that wouldn’t work, because they have no money.
As far as taxing the middle class, best address your protests to your Democrat masters, for that is the only way they can climb out of the hole of debt that they’ve put the government into.
The rich don’t have all the money; that fantasy is one that excites emotion among the dimwitted, but doesn’t match reality. As Margaret Thatcher so famously said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. Once you’ve plundered the rich, where will you get the money for all these beneficent government programs?
July 6th, 2011 at 09:45
And you’re the expert on human nature. I see.
News flash: ‘Living in social groups’ isn’t the same thing as ‘socialism’. Certainly socialism, in the form of ‘the government owns everything’, is of ancient date; socialism is merely the most recent re-branding of what is more accurately termed ‘slavery’. (Let’s see: Appeal to long history and tradition — smells like a ‘conservative’ to me.)