Originally Posted by jiveturkey
I saw that but it just didn't connect with me. Not that I need to understand it. Either approach makes sense IMO.
I just found it odd that one approach is socialism while the other isn't. In both scenarios the wealthy are playing by a different set of rules.
No, you're right to question that. Both are moves toward socialism, IMO, and are a testament to the success of the left's class warfare of the past few years. One is better for everyone economically, though. The other one gives a greater impression of sticking it to the man.
Here are two of my thoughts:
1. I don't like that we're only targeting higher income groups for increased revenue. I think the pain/sacrifice should be across the board, just like Bush's tax cuts were across the board. (There's far more revenue available through modest tax changes from the bottom 95% than there is from dramatic tax changes applied to the top 5%).
2. I fear that if the approach recommended in this article is adopted, democrats will just come along in a few years trying to increase marginal rates on the higher income groups on top of this revenue increase just because they'll still be able to demagogue the highly-visible marginal rate issue.
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will