You make a decent argument, but I still believe that the tax system is unfairly biased against those who earn more money.
Well comrade... LoL
... I'm not all that big on taxes either. I do stand up for basic social needs programs.
And this is our fundamental disagreement. I, like this country's Founders, believe firmly in the concept of self-responsibility. This is not mutually exclusive with the idea of helping people, but the federal government is
NEVER the solution to social issues. Everything the federal government gets involved in just becomes slower, inefficient, and expensive.
This is why I support charity and faith-based programs. It should come as no surprise that, for this reason, conservative individuals and capitalist countries are more charitable. Conservatives and capitalists believe in personally helping one another out through direct action. Liberals and other big-government countries have this feeling that the government will take care of everything and the government is the source of every solution.
This is the fundamental departure of ideals. I believe that the government which governs
least, governs best. You believe that the government that governs
most governs best.
I think they are necessary in our modern day society. I'll take Social Security for an example. There was a time when many generations stayed together in one residence (usually a farm) and took care of each other. As times changed and city life became more the norm families started separating by generation more and more and we had a rampant outbreak of poverty stricken old age where the elderly were in many cases living on the streets homeless.
Social Security was nothing more than another one of FDR's "reform" measures in attempting to create a welfare state of perpetual dependence on the government. A lot like today's Democratic party.
And it makes sense. The Democrats
depend on this impoverished bracket (the "lazy bums" as steveox refers to them) to vote for them. So they really have no incentive to get these people out of poverty. Because once they start making money, and paying taxes, well -- that's when people start moving right.
Somethings are just relevant now that weren't back in 1776. If we base everything as only being the right and necessary things for that time period and not today you can see there would be a problem. We'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be voting. So I try not to get too stuck in the past.
Of course, but you always have to keep the intent of the Founders in mind. If nothing else, they stood for limited federal government. It was most certainly never the intention of the Founders to have a state where the top 1% of the country pays for themselves and the lower third of the country, for example.
Read Jefferson. He wanted a country where everyone built nice families, worked with their own land out on the farm, and made a good, decent living with absolutely no interference from the federal government.
The Founders would absolutely hate welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all these other big-gov't programs, but moreso they would fear that this is the beginning of the one thing they unanimously wanted to avoid: a large federal government that could potentially deteriorate into tyranny.
I agree with you though... a 50% income tax would of course be excessive.
So you support cutting taxes?
