Ravenwood - 01/12/07 06:45 PM
If this were my paper, I'd cancel my subscription:
The tax system in the United States is supposed to mitigate inequality.It is? That's news to me.
Remember Wesley Clark?
"I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation."
(http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm)
And yet, if you were to say that the NY Times Editorial Board is socialist, they would scream McCarthyism.
Speaking about taxation, how about the fairtax?? Anything that gets the NY Times upset is something I support 100%.
Posted by: Joseph at January 15, 2007 4:25 PMOf course, the biggest steaming pile in this editorial is the notion that the Bush tax cuts have somehow increased the inequality between rich and poor.
The "Bush tax cuts" actually piss me off pretty badly, because besides being too small, and largely based on the attempt to maximize governmental revenue, the cuts were actually greater for lower income levels. This means that the "rich" pay an even larger percentage of the total tax receipts.
End result - our tax system is more progressive today than before Bush took office, yet liberals still bitch and fail to understand how much Bush has helped their cause in the long run.
Posted by: roger at January 16, 2007 4:38 PMIt is supposed to be progressive. It says so right here in the Constitution. Ummm, right here?
Posted by: Windy Wilson at January 23, 2007 6:17 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
