But money is not simply a choice. ... It's a necessity for all persons, and it needs to be discussed in the same way that we discuss necessities (like air or water) not in the way we discuss choices. ... Taxation is not ... the grasshopper's revenge on the ant, the lazy person's vampiric attempt to live off the industrious (or the well-funded grandchildren of the industrious). Taxation is, instead, a statement of value.
Taxing the rich at higher percentages is a way of saying "We have some idea of how much an American needs to live comfortably, and you are so far in excess of that that we are willing to tax you at a higher rate" ... And once the Christians wake up to that fact (and realize that every time they've been voting against abortion and against buggery, they have received in return tax cuts for the rich and governmental assistance to corportations) there will be more than just hell to pay. There will be taxes.
Some thoughts from a fray Democrat that was more successful in bringing forth the point than many of those who ran for office a few weeks afterwards. And, it shows how economics is as much about values in many respects as allowing locals to use medicinal marijuana is about interstate commerce (or more so), though I feel more comfortable talking about the latter subject than the former.
Perhaps, the message will be heard by some in the party, who really have to go back to first principles, if it wants to rise once again. A basic principle is the idea of a progressive tax system, one that realizes that the rich benefit from the work of those teeming millions that do their work. Quid pro quo. Interrelated. Interconnected. Dare I say moral responsibility? [I dare]
And, the tax deduction for health insurance (an issue called to my attention by another frayster) fits the bill. The suggestion that Bush's "revenue neutral" (aka "there's not such thing as a free lunch") proposal will take this away (along with "considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns" [WP], which Howard Dean might point to as tax shift) would do so seems to be a perfect opportunity to underline the point. Unless Red Staters like encouraging employers to revoke their health coverage etc.
[the subject line is a bit of framing, of course, but the essay below makes it appear to be an accurate one]
I shall leave the economics to the experts [except when I don't], but the whole issue seemed to this amateur a red flag. And, when you see red, you should stop and be careful ... or stop and be vocal. Whatever fits the moment.
[read the piece that inspired the above here]