The conviction that taxation is intrinsically evil has achieved a sadomasochistic fervor in conservative circles—producing the Tea Party, their Republican zombies, and increasingly terrifying failures of governance[…] Conservatives view taxation as a species of theft—and to raise taxes, on anyone for any reason, is simply to steal more.
Read more . . .
Always Question Authority
One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority. ~ Hitchens
Always Question Authority 
The article was thoughtful, but the use of the word “allowed” was misdirected at individuals when it should have legitimately been aimed at government. Here the rebuttal : http://www.anthidote.com/anthidote/2011/08/a-rebuttal-to-how-rich-is-too-rich-by-sam-harris.html
Mr. Forcucci,
I appreciate your well thought out rebuttal, especially the part that read, “By and large Americans don’t have a problem with the concept of paying taxes, they have a problem with paying taxes when the tax revenue gets squandered.”
However, I wonder if you had the same consternation when the disturbingly Pro-Corporate Supreme Court ruled down party line–as usual–that Corporations are considered “persons.” Also, I wonder if you were concerned when the 2000 Supreme Court appointed President squandered a budget surplus for two unfunded wars of choice, and cut taxes to boot.
In Reason,
Madison
crisap444,
It is past my bedtime. I believe you deserve an answer, and I give you my word; I will respond tomorrow.
In Reason,
Madison
I will grant you pure supply side economics (the idea that just cutting taxes will solve problems) doesn’t work. I never implied that it did, you simply added the words “supply side economics” because it supplies an easy straw-man to attack that comes with a pre-packed emotional reaction.
I was arguing against the equally stupid idea that taxing more is also an answer. History, from Rome, to Renaissance Italian city states, to colonialism, to the modern day all suggest that high taxes are destructive. It also suggests that overly active government–the kind that requires huge taxes or huge deficits to support it–is also destructive to society…but if you can think of a overly active government with high taxes that was successful I would love to hear of it. If you would like detailed justification for this point I would recommend the writing of Nobel winning economists Hayek and Friedman”—I know, I know, those damn intellectuals—”
Further most conservatives point to places like pre-Chinese takeover Hong Kong and modern New Zealand as examples of small governments providing wealth, growth and prosperity. Somalia is the lack of government, not the presence of the limited government conservatives want.
Further my first statement, while flip, did ask if you had an example of a tax that did not work to destroy the industry or person it was placed on. Instead of giving a single example, you choose to stoop to personal insults than provide a single example. Where is the reason in that?
Hello crisap444,
As promised…
“I will grant you pure supply side economics (the idea that just cutting taxes will solve problems) doesn’t work.” I never implied that it did, you simply added the words “supply side economics” because it supplies an easy straw-man to attack that comes with a pre-packed emotional reaction.
I fail to see how stating, “having a hard time coming up with an exception to the idea that the power to tax is the power to destroy” is not an implication of support for supply-side economics. It was certainly not an implication of support for Keynesian economics. I agree with you that pointing out the failure, let alone the fraud, of supply-side economics does arouse an emotional reaction; however, it does not constitute a straw-man because of said emotional reaction.
If one claims an inability to find an “exception to the idea that the power to tax is the power to destroy” in one breath, yet in another, claims that it is an “equally stupid idea that taxing more is also an answer,” then the reader is left wondering what exactly does one support.
The ancient to medieval to modern day tax jaunt must have stopped at the conclusion of WWII, because if one were to compare the U.S. income tax rates from that time to present day vs. U.S. prosperity over that time period, one would clearly see that high income taxes were, in fact, very successful. Contemporaneously, one could also look to the Scandinavian countries, and even Germany to see examples of “overly active government[s] with high taxes,” that are successful.
“[T]he writing of Nobel winning economists Hayek and Friedman,” would be highly recommended if one wanted to learn how to destroy an economy; however, if one were interested in learning how to run a successful economy, one would avoid neoclassical economics all together. One would be much better served reading the writings of Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman, and the great British economist John Maynard Keynes.
The income tax rates from Eisenhower through Regan should suffice as an “example of a tax that did not work to destroy the industry or person it was placed on.”
Do realize that while you are correct that I did “stoop to personal insults,” recall that they were only directed to St. Reagan, not to you.
In Reason,
Madison
I’m having a hard time coming up with an exception to the idea that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The necessary evil of low taxes need to be tolerated to keep the necessary evil of government running so that it can protect our rights and property…but not a single dime past what it takes to defend those rights is justifiable or will lead to long term benefits for anyone.
Hello crisap444,
The old Reagan mantra that “government is not the solution to our problems, government is our problem,” is just as lowbrow, and irrational as he. The old Norquist mantra that “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” is as insane and irrational as the previous conservative parroting.
These thirty years old, worn out, supply-side, ideas have proven to be an ultimate failure. Recall, Einstein—I know, I know, those damn intellectuals—who stated, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” However, there is such a Conservative Utopia of which you describe, it is named Somalia.
The About page of this blog states that “It is for the well-informed, and well-read with an independence of mind who place a high value on reason, critical thought, and general intellectualism. The submitted comment failed on all counts. Any like response would indicate a “Troll” is among us, and would not likely be accepted. It is not that I am not open to new ideas, but frankly, Conservatives have none, and it is unusual that I even deign to respond to a Conservative, for I find no common ground with the shallowness of Conservative ideology. Good day!
In Reason,
Madison