We have a surplus, a very large one. As long as that surplus exists, there cannot possibly be any "lost revenue" from tax cuts.
They have a small point as to charitable giving, but if you look beneath the surface, you'll realize that what they're really doing here is admitting that people in these cases have been treating charities almost as taxes unto themselves. If their only choice is between having a charity take their estate money and having the government take it, there's not a lot of difference. And IMHO, a true meritocracy would allow those who gain from their merits to be allowed to use said gains as they see fit. Otherwise, it's not really a meritocracy at all.posted by aaron at 10:03 AM on February 14, 2001
But more importantly, as I said earlier, we're running a humongous surplus right now. We collect far more in taxes than we use. Under these circumstances, I can't see any reason why some should have to pay more than others. If the poor aren't getting the services they need, the problem is legislative, not monetary.posted by aaron at 11:06 AM on February 14, 2001
« Older Jorn tries pay for play.... | Prime Time. ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt