"GIVING these big red eggs to the very high income people would cost $700 billion that we would have to borrow to GIVE it."Yuck. To me, it seems pretty twisted to think that by not forcibly TAKING people's money from them in the form of taxes, the government is thereby GIVING them money. Think of a grade school bully reasoning this way. "Sorry Timmy, but I can't afford to let you keep your lunch money today. It would just cost me too much to give that to you. So hand it over."
Dear Anon,I'm not in favor of bullying, so let me take a shot at defending this. If you're not forcibly taking _someone's_ money, you're not going to pay off the massive debts incurred by running two wars. Since debts have to be paid, you have to take _someone's_ money. So, who are you going to take it from? You can take it from those who need it the least or those who need it the most. It would have been nice if we paid for the wars before we got into this or never had two wars to pay off, but if you think we're going to pay off our debts without increased tax revenue, I don't think you're spending a ton of time reading what crazy leftwing economists like Alan Greenspan have to say about this.
Post a Comment