The goal of the government should not be to eliminate or reduce the gap. The goal should be to have the best tax rates that are optimal for a healthy economy. I think we are trying to make 2 different points here. My point is that going from the current tax rate to Clinton's tax rate is not going to end the rapid increase of the gap between middle class and the rich. Your point involves a tax fairness issue. I think the fairest is the one best for the economy and I believe that to be a low one. And I'm suggesting if Bush's health care plan is unfunded then Obama should fund it before passing his Trillion dollar health care plan. To me that's just as irresponsible. If your household has massive credit card debt is it wise to purchase a big ticket item because you can identify money to pay for it or would it be more responsible to pay off your existing debt? Yes we have but in case you haven't noticed the borrowing has picked up astronomically since Obama took office and the outlook for containing the deficits looks dire for the foreseeable future according to the CBO.
I'll take that as a resignation. If the goal were to have the best tax rates for a healthy economy then there would be no taxes and no government. And I've never suggested to eliminate it, only to reduce it by the amount that amounts to a tax break for the wealthy. You still think this is fair somehow, but you can;t justify it. Then you do not understand fairness issues if you imagine that the fairest solution is to ignore fairness and assume what is good for the rich is good for America. You can't prove this. How politically naive can you get? Why should Obama not just unfund his own plan too, and let the Republicans pay for it when they get back in office? No, the Republicans must run on their own irresponsibility. Yes he inherited a huge mess from Bush with a recession, a financial collapse, and two unfinished wars to pay for. That's why he's determined to pay for his own programs. That's why the moderate voters are not eager for a return of failed fiscal Republican policies.
The goal should not focus primarily on tax fairness. Your idea of tax fairness doesn't necessarily equate to what's best for the overall economy. The main goal should be to implement optimal tax rates that would be most favorable for economic growth and that will support prudent government spending. Are you for tax fairness if it means sacrificing jobs? I have no issue with taxing all income at a flat rate as long as that rate remains low. You're only concerned with your idea of what's fair without regard to the affects on the economy. Now more than ever we need a tax policy that's pro job growth. Fairness is a noble goal but not if it leads to less job creation. I don't think we should ignore fairness altogether. However, I believe the politicians should be more concerned with a tax policy that's best for economic growth. Their pursuit of their idea of fairness should not hinder that. We shall see in a few weeks.
They are clearly two separate issues. Where do you get the notion that the economy can be addressed by making taxes unfair? Or that the tax unfairness is somehow propping up the economy? Two issues. Tax Fairness. The economy. You want to simply dismiss the tax inequality issue by crying "the economy" as justification. Yet you offer no reasons that this should be true. It's a non-sequitor.
