Cross-posted from my blog:
Liberal and conservative readers alike, what is your one strongest point for, or against, equal taxes across the board? And if this is an issue that you’re fired up about, who’s the 2008 candidate most closely aligned with your beliefs on the subject?
For those of you who aren’t frequent Op-Edna readers, you’re missing quite the showdown in an archived entry’s comment section. On September 17, I wrote in support of Hillary Clinton’s proposed health care overhaul (Opens in new window):
"The best part of the plan, I feel, is here, taken from CNN.com: ‘To help pay for the plan, Clinton would also eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.’"
More than a month later, a visitor posted this comment to me:
"It’s interesting that your favorite part of the plan is that it increases taxes on the wealthy. Class envy makes you look pretty ugly."
As you all know, I love a good debate; it’s why I started this blog. I decided to bump and elaborate on this conversation, which I recommend you read, as this heated thread goes on for a dozen comments and nearly two months. Now I want your opinions. Yes, all of them.
Liberal and conservative readers alike, what is your one strongest point for, or against, equal taxes across the board? And if this is an issue that you’re fired up about, who’s the 2008 candidate most closely aligned with your beliefs on the subject?
So you know my thoughts, this was taken from my last comment in the afore-mentioned entry’s thread. I haven’t yet decided who I’m voting for. So convince me.
Fair means if there’s tax cuts for some, there’s equal cuts for all. If the wealthy pay only 20% taxes while the rest of us pay 35%, fair could mean we all pay 27%. I don’t understand why wealthy people should pay a smaller amount simply because they earn more than the poor. The fact is, it’s just as difficult for someone who makes $30,000 to give 35% of their income to the IRS as it is for someone who makes $3,000,000 to give $1,333,333 to the IRS. The percentage is proportionate. If the wealthy have a problem with that, they can donate to a charity and get a deduction. Or start their own business with all that capital and write off the expenses. If Joe Smith inherits all of his wealth and never has to work a day in his life, fine by me. But if Joe Smith needs to mail a letter via the postal service, take out a book from a library, send his kids to public school, walk down a clean sidewalk, or needs the assistance of the police or a firefighter, he needs to pay taxes like the rest of us.
Show me where in our Constitution it states that the wealthy should pay less tax than the rest of us. In case you, like Bush, have no knowledge of the U.S. Constitution or simply haven’t ever cared enough to read it, the 16th Amendment states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
I’m fairly certain the terms "without apportionment" and "without regard to any census or enumeration" are in there to indicate that we should all pay the same federal taxes no matter what. Then again, this administration has shat on everything else the Constitution stands for, so why start honoring it now? We’ll just have to wait for a Democrat to be elected to get back to the true democracy this country was founded to be.
Everytime Giuliani says "Democrats are going to raise taxes" I cheer. Because Democrats will raise taxes, but only for the wealthy. That isn’t class envy, that’s equality...
And by the way, I haven’t heard any Democratic candidates say they were going to give deep tax breaks to the poor and middle class, I’ve only heard that they intend to repeal the tax cuts given to the wealthiest 5% or 10% of Americans. That’s balanced. And you know what else is balanced? Our budget, when we stop giving tax cuts to the wealthy. To me, a balanced budget sounds much better than the NINE TRILLION DOLLAR debt George W. Bush has landed us in.
Again. Nine TRILLION dollars.
That’s TRILLION.
Imagine how much smaller that debt could be if the wealthy were paying equal taxes as the rest of us over the past eight years.
Oh, and in case we have any anti-Clintonians in the house who are about to blame Slick Willy for the national debt, in 1997, Clinton completely balanced the budget, and in 2000, he allocated a $216 billion payment towards our national debt, which was the single largest debt paydown in American history. Additionally, when he left office, our total national debt stood at around $5.7 trillion, the obvious majority of which was not his. Bush is single-handedly responsible for putting our country almost twice as much in debt as it was when Clinton left office. CNN.com has an archive with great proof, but Daily Kos won't let me link it, so go to CNN.com and search "Clinton debt."