GOP congressman: Republican Party has become too extreme, incapable of governing

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You're positing a form of class struggle ('electorate' vs. 'political class' over taxes, which the former always wants as low[/flat?] as possible and the latter always wants as high[/progressive?] as possible) which doesn't actually bear much resemblance to reality at all, although to be absolutely fair it's somewhat more sensible than some other dialectics I've seen people come up with. You don't appear to view the dynamic as one in which taxes are raised and lowered according to real or perceived macroeconomic utility and such policies are argued to the public based upon either their merits or common rhetoric (you likewise don't seem to view taxation as a macroeconomic policy choice of any kind so much as some complicated form of embezzlement, which may explain your apparent inability to understand the import of the fact that income tax rates have been relatively low for several decades now).

Okay, I got your point and understand exactly what was so baffling to me about it. Thank you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.

Again, my point seems to have completely eluded you. I'm fairly confident that if the electorate took the decision to prefer choosing not to pay any higher taxes rather than waiting until they are unable to pay any higher taxes many in the political class would take the attitude that this is just a phase that the electorate is going through and that they need merely wait them out before raising taxes yet again. The electorate has to take this into account.

Either taxes really reach a political limit, or it is subject to renegotiation.  If the electorate continues to renegotiate with the political class, taxes will inevitably rise to the point that the citizenry simply cannot pay more. Again, I am arguing that the electorate choosing a limit for the political class is the rational political choice. If the electorate doesn't stick that political limit then it simply isn't a limit.

Oh, I see what's going on here. You're positing a form of class struggle ('electorate' vs. 'political class' over taxes, which the former always wants as low[/flat?] as possible and the latter always wants as high[/progressive?] as possible) which doesn't actually bear much resemblance to reality at all, although to be absolutely fair it's somewhat more sensible than some other dialectics I've seen people come up with. You don't appear to view the dynamic as one in which taxes are raised and lowered according to real or perceived macroeconomic utility and such policies are argued to the public based upon either their merits or common rhetoric (you likewise don't seem to view taxation as a macroeconomic policy choice of any kind so much as some complicated form of embezzlement, which may explain your apparent inability to understand the import of the fact that income tax rates have been relatively low for several decades now).

Okay, I got your point and understand exactly what was so baffling to me about it. Thank you.

Sorry, you simply didn't get it. The size of government at all levels has grown consistently over the last century precisely because government has internal biases towards growth. The natural progression of such a system is for taxes to rise until the electorate is no longer capable of paying more taxes. The best way to change that bias is not from within the system. The best way to change that bias is for the electorate to place a limit to that growth, and stick to that limit. I reject just about every buzzword you have assigned to me as examples of your fundamental inability to put aside your ideological blinders to  observe the objective world as it actually exists.

As to your claim as to taxes being "relatively low for several decades" I would merely refer you to the "tax freedom day" which is calculated by comparing total income against total taxes at every level of government. It simply hasn't shown the trend you have claimed.

Okay, so you see taxation as some sort of tumorous growth, not some sort of embezzlement. Too bad the rest of what you're saying has no basis in reality because 'size of government' isn't a particularly meaningful measure except in the context of the nonexistent class struggle that you keep talking about.

I'm aware of Tax Freedom Day. The averages that it comes out with are consistently misinterpreted for use as talking points and it doesn't do what you claim it does because it measures capital gains tax but not capital gains. It also hasn't moved outside of a relatively narrow belt since the 1960s, which kind of puts the lie to your quixotic notion of the tax burden inexorably spreading like mesothelioma or the apostolic succession, doesn't it?

I have been referring, of course, to the tax burden on any given actual flesh-and-blood American, not the undifferentiated Frankfurt School-esque masses that seem to interest you more.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hanna's said stuff like this before, though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bob, the problem isn't necessarily that your numbers are wrong on their own terms. The problem is that you're missing the point because you don't seem to be able to distinguish between different social classes, except when they're social classes that you made up, or between different systems of government, or between different types of spending, except when they're differences that Grover Norquist made up. The way to shift the burden on people of flesh and blood is to shift the burden, not to ruthlessly slash services.