Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Re: Progressive taxation is not only essential, but MORAL.
Ya just don't get it, do ya? You're focused on that one tree, and because of that, you can't see the whole forest around you.
And we go back to the default questions that no conservatives have yet been able to answer: if the social safety nets found in ALL first-world democracies are SO bad for a nation's economy, then why is it that all first-world nations REMAIN in first-world status even after ALL of us have had these comprehensive social safety nets for a minimum of a half century - and in several cases significantly longer than that? And if weak government, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation is the best way for a nation to have economic prosperity, then why is it that ALL nations with those systems are third-world nations and show no sign of achieving first-world status in the foreseeable future?
If conservative economic dogma were true, then it would be the nations with weak governments, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation that would be first-world nations...and those heavily socialized democracies (like our own) would be spiraling down to the economic dustbin of history. But we're not. The state of the world's economies is precisely the opposite of what conservative economic dogma says it oughta be, given our respective economic systems.
In other words, TD, the state of all the world's nations should tell you something: that while it sounds really nice and ethical and logical to only have the same rate of tax for everyone, and that no one should be able to get what they can't personally pay for at the moment...the REALITY is that such an approach to a nation's economy is NOT the most effective way to build a prosperous national economy.
I think h is saying that if we don't pay taxes and taxes and taxes to fund the have nots, they will revolt and kill us. IT is consistent with a prior post of his where he argues the rich should be forced to kneel and grovel before the masses to keep the wealth they own lest the masses kill them and take the riches
Ya just don't get it, do ya? You're focused on that one tree, and because of that, you can't see the whole forest around you.
And we go back to the default questions that no conservatives have yet been able to answer: if the social safety nets found in ALL first-world democracies are SO bad for a nation's economy, then why is it that all first-world nations REMAIN in first-world status even after ALL of us have had these comprehensive social safety nets for a minimum of a half century - and in several cases significantly longer than that? And if weak government, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation is the best way for a nation to have economic prosperity, then why is it that ALL nations with those systems are third-world nations and show no sign of achieving first-world status in the foreseeable future?
If conservative economic dogma were true, then it would be the nations with weak governments, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation that would be first-world nations...and those heavily socialized democracies (like our own) would be spiraling down to the economic dustbin of history. But we're not. The state of the world's economies is precisely the opposite of what conservative economic dogma says it oughta be, given our respective economic systems.
In other words, TD, the state of all the world's nations should tell you something: that while it sounds really nice and ethical and logical to only have the same rate of tax for everyone, and that no one should be able to get what they can't personally pay for at the moment...the REALITY is that such an approach to a nation's economy is NOT the most effective way to build a prosperous national economy.