NJ Governor

[Michael Z]

You're surprised the McGreevey raised taxes?  What did you expect when you elected a Democrat?  I haven't seen a Democrat lately who could stand up to the special interests who have their hand out for your tax money.

As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts?

Of course, the major difference is that the "special interests" you speak of are those the majority of tax payers can benefit from (public transport, education, etc).

[Michael Z]

As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts?

Of course, the major difference is that the "special interests" you speak of are those the majority of tax payers can benefit from (public transport, education, etc).

I don't consider individual taxpayers as "special interests" for being allowed to keep a little more of their own money.

Then what about corporations and vested interests? Most tax cuts barely affect the average tax payer.

[Michael Z]

As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts?

-I know giving the middle class tax cuts is hell isn't it.

That's not what I was implying and you know it.

The fact that you're twisting my words around and are jumping to conclusions about my character is quite offensive and, frankly, says more about you than it does about me.

[Michael Z]

well first off it was said in jest.  so lighten up.  I guess I'll just have to put a smiley face on each time I say something in jest, geez.

Sorry, I didn't know you were kidding. But don't worry, you just caught me in a bad mood at the time.

[Michael Z]

Yes, Dazzleman, one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give a small portion of their money back to the less fortunate, while conservatives believe that they should be allowed to keep it.

Please.  That's not what we believe at all.  We believe that the weathy do have that obligation, that's what trickle-down economics is all about.  We just believe that it should be done through charity and not wasteful "entitlement" program.

Trickle-down economics doesn't always work though. This letter to the Guardian best sums up why:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll admit it's fuzzy math, but it's an apt illustration of what can happen, and often does happen.

Nothing on your tax return says you can't give more in taxes.  These liberal eleites want everyone to pay more, so why don't they?  its perfectly legal and withint he law.

That's a fair point, but what exactly do you mean by "liberal elites"?

[Michael Z]

I agree with the final point. I am a strong supporter of individual rights. However, taxes and social welafare programs save lives, and that is the key point for me. The restrictions on personal freedom is a price I am willing to pay. It shouldn't be allowed to reach the point where people stop taking responsibility for their own lives, and so on, but a safety net for the unfortunate is fully acceptable in a civilised society. Charity has never worked, I would like it if it did, but it doesn't, unfortunately.

Excellently put! The trouble with trickledown economics is that as a model it's ideologically driven, but is unpragmatic in reality. Like you said, taxation is a necessary evil to ensure an acceptable standard of living for everyone (which surely should be a right, not a privilege, in this day and age; of course those who work should have a higher standard of living than those who don't, that goes without saying; I'm talking of the very poor in society enjoying the same privileges such as education and healthcare, as the very rich). And as Gustaf said, social welfare funded via taxation saves lives. That alone makes it necessary.