Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
For my part it is not so much that tax reductions are bad, (They not, per se.), it's how they are targeted and what we are told must be cut to pay for them.
I wouldn't mind seeing tax cuts for struggling businesses. I would not have a problem with government truly reducing waste and corruption to free up the funds to pay for for said cuts.
The problem is, this is usiually not what we get. With Dems we seem to get higher taxes with no reduction in waste and fraud. Republicans always seem to suggest reductions in benefits for working folks and the poor while protecting tax cuts for the top earners, and no reduction in fraud and waste.
These two models make no sense to me. In one, we keep throwing money into a bottomless pit of corruption. In the other we give taxcuts to people who have no need of them and cut benefits to those most in need*,....while continuing to throw money into a bottomless pit of corruption.
So, like the rest of the country, I struggle to discern the lesser of the two evils.
Dave
*(To my mind, reducing benefits to the poor and working classes in order to give cuts to the top of the economic strata----IS a form of corruption.)
|
I agree with much of this, believe it or not. To me, the nature of our current tax code is such that the government is picking winners and losers with targeted tax breaks and loop holes. Protecting that structure is what the debate about "taxing the rich" is really all about. It's not about the rich. It's about protecting the tax system that keeps politicians in a position of power, able to elicit "tribute" in the form of campaign contributions from beneficiaries of certain tax treatment.