|Rock'n chair Rambler
Over Taxed, TX
February 25, 2012 9:19am
|"Rambling, I definitely don’t see how I made your point... a Progressive tax is not socialism"
If you can’t see that taxing a person based on his “ability to pay” (MEANS), in order to sustain a welfare state, (NEEDS), is not perfectly aligned with the principles of socialism, then you simply don’t know what socialism is. You either don’t know, or don’t want to admit it. Perhaps you don’t care, and that is what frightens me.
Do you not understand that socialism encompasses the goal of wealth redistribution as one of it’s primary principles?
" the national debt as percentage of GDP usually goes above 40% in times of crisis (like this one). "
Times of crisis? What the heck do you think the crisis is? The crisis IS the debt. The bad economy is only a symptom of the crises and is the direct result of the federal government doing things it should not be doing, i.e. forcing banks to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act. There would not be a crisis if the politicians would simply stop creating insurmountable debt doing things that are wasteful, unnecessary, and very much contrary to the original intent of the Constitution, and trying to micro-manage the economy based on failed Keynesian (socialist) theories. OK, you don’t want to call it socialism. How about we just call it stupid and wrong?
“The real issue with Obama and socialism is the cost and number of needs he trying to make “rights” like health insurance, etc. “……. “a progressive tax has nothing to do with needs”
Those two statements are totally contradictory. What do you think pays for all those “needs”?
“So, they don’t get that extra trip to Europe or they don’t get that third vacation home. “
I can’t believe you actually said that. So, you believe there is a limit to how much wealth a person should be allowed to accumulate? And you believe that is fair, moral and just? You have a rather distorted and frightening view of fairness.
You believe that according to some arbitrary, politically expedient calculation, if you have been deemed to have legally and honestly earned too much money, the government should take it from you and “spread it around” on anything it deems necessary? If you believe that, I pray you don’t vote.
Providing for the less privileged by taking from those deemed to have “made enough”, may seem well intentioned or practical, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions as was our current $16 trillion debt.