Skip to main content

View Diary: Taxing the rich: it's not about "fairness" (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Great diary (0+ / 0-)

    I logged in to tip and rec it.  I hate using the word "fair" for precisely the reason you defined:  It's such a squishy and difficult to define term that it makes it hard to make concrete, logical arguments for better tax policy.  

    Another great way to do it is by using President Clinton's argument:  math.  It's pretty simple actually -- when 1% of the people in this country own 40% of the wealth, and you're trying to pay for the stuff that we all use, it's pretty easy to figure out where to go to get all the money.  Aircraft carriers and bridges don't grow on trees, and there is almost universal support that we need these things.  If you want to pay for them, you have to get the money from somewhere.  And since the wealthiest 1% are currently hoarding a shitload of wealth while the bottom 50% are barely getting by, it's easy to see where the money pretty much HAS to come from.  You can't get blood from a stone.  If you want aircraft carriers, and bridges, and Medicare, and Social Security, and money for schools, etc, etc .... We have to raise taxes on wealth.  It's not about what's fair or about what's just, it's simple math -- we need money to pay for that stuff and they have all the money.  

    I think this is an argument that should appeal to conservatives, because it honors their ideas while challenging their spending cut fetish.  They won't argue for spending cuts for things even most conservatives agree they want, and it challenges them to put up or shut up if they are serious about deficit reduction.  You guys want to keep this stuff that voters like so they'll keep voting for you?  Fine.  PAY FOR IT.  

    A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy.

    by Guy Fawkes on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 12:21:57 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site