The people I've heard (mostly idealists, not politicians) who want a 15-16% tax rate have a very different view of what government should be spending money on than liberals and it would work under their spending ideals. Maybe so, but that assumes that some politician has the guts to actually implement those idealist spending cuts. As we see from this administration, with a Republican President and Republican Congress, spending has skyrocketed. Cut the spending first ... then discuss a new, lower-revenue tax system, in my opinion. My view on federal income taxes are that they should be lower for all brackets and that the local taxes should be higher to ensure money from an area stays in that area to care for its unique problem set. The main problem with this is that the money and the problems are in different areas. The richer communities tend to be the ones that have the fewest social-services needs and vice-versa. You end up with the problem you have with Texas schools and "Robin Hood". The poor schools are the ones that struggle, but they don't have the money to improve because so much of the funding is locally generated. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
I find the right for each person (and thus each family) to spend, save, preserve, gift, burn, eat, devise, invest, etc., his own money weightier than any heart-wrenching story you can create. I doubt if the single-mother is paying much, if any, in income taxes anyway, so I doubt if she has much of an argument. I have never seen anywhere in American doctrine any indication that a less privileged human inherently has more right to another more-privileged person's money. That is a nauseatingly socialist ideal that needs to be eliminated from the mindset of this country. The fact that 50% of Americans apparently pay $0 in federal income taxes and still have pompous, wealthy liberals pandering to them about how they're getting jobbed really wrankles my gut.
The problem with these kinds of ideas of shielding the poor from taxes as well as hiking taxes on the rich is that there is no good idea of what "rich" is. Apparently, according the the tax law, since my wife and I worked our butts off at A&M and were able to both come out of college with well paying jobs right off the start...I'm apparently now "rich" in the sese that we pay a TON of tax. We are in that middle ground that more and more people in this nation are in, and that get hit where it hurts on tax. The HENRYs...High Earning, NOT RICH YET...(even though I'm not necessarily saying I'll actually be rich). These are the people that pay 40% of their money in taxes (federal, local, property, sales tax) but still struggle to make a house payment, save for their kids' college, make a car payment, pay bills, have day care, save for retirement, have a little spending monday, and still have enough to save for a fairly decent vacation because they've been working 50-70 hours a week to support their family and pay their taxes. It hurts when a poor person pays 10-15% on 20-30,000...but they are still paying around 2000 to 3000 after deductions and credits....but I'm not saying it doesn't suck to pay that tax...It hurts when somebody makes 10 million and has to right a check for 3-4 million to Uncle Sam...but they still have 6-7 million for the year.... ...the people that really get screwed are all the people that go to college...get an education...strive for a good job and career and work hard...and make 70,000....100,000, even 250,000. When they pay 30-40% it makes a huge impact on their quality of life and and lifestyle....They feel it a lot more, in my opinion....its always the people that are right on the cusp of being highly successful that get kicked in the face with taxes.... ...the people that are already highly successful can eat the tax, even though it hurts some...and the people that are not successful, struggle....but aren't really paying that much in tax anyways, yet it hurts...its the people trying to pull themselves up on the cliff of success that get their fingers stepped on by these taxes, however. Oh well, just my opinion.
padgett, fair enough answer, even if I dispute the numbers. Basically, you'd like to see us go back to a pre-New-Deal sort of America, right? That's definitely one point of view. Personally, I don't think human nature, left to its own devices, will really protect the less fortunate from pure capitalism. Even though I'm not a wealthy liberal, I am, as you charge, a sometimes pompous one, so maybe you disregard these sentiments out of hand. May your taxes be low, and may your needs of government be few. Peace.
By the way, Clark is now a solid second behind Dean nationally and just moved into second ahead of Kerry in the NH polls. Looking more and more like a two-man race for both votes and money that could get much more interesting than I suspected a few weeks ago.
I have never seen anywhere in American doctrine any indication that a less privileged human inherently has more right to another more-privileged person's money. That is a nauseatingly socialist ideal that needs to be eliminated from the mindset of this country. So the socialistic US government is forcing the rich people to hand out money to the poor? You are one funny man. Time to buy a clue (and leave the empty rhetoric to others).
Not sure if you've noticed, but healthy food is usually much more expensive than, say, ramen noodles and macaroni and cheese. It's cheaper to eat garbage than it is to eat salads, and if you're below poverty then eating food that tastes good (though it may be deadly) may be one of the few sources of pleasure available to you. ....and if poverty was ever eradicated, McDonald's would lose a sizable portion of their target demographic. Imagine the impact on the economy.
