Originally Posted by pjohns

Again, you seem to assume that is is even possible to require corporations to pay taxes. I would assert that it is not possible to do so, in any meaningful sense. Corporations will inevitably pass along such increases to the consumer, in the form of higher retail prices; or reduce employment opportunities; or reduce the number of hours worked by wage-per-hour employees; or some combination thereof.



And you find this acceptable?

Enlightened self-interest (which, by the way, is not the same thing as greed; the latter is a perversion of the former) demands that if success is going to be penalized at a clearly confiscatory rate--almost everything one earns, beyond a certain point, will be seized by the government--one should not even make any serious efforts in that direction.

Moreover, it appears to me--and please correct me, if I am mistaken--that you view the American money supply to be the property of the US government; which (benevolently, perhaps?) allows American citizens to keep whatever portion of their earnings that the government deems appropriate.

If this is your view, then we deeply disagree.

I would assert that the ultimate owner of American money is the person who earns (or even inherits) it--not the government--and that private citizens give the government no more than what we consider appropriate for the government to have (as determined by our elected representatives, who set the tax rates and make laws that affect the tax code).



For some inexplicable reason, you continue to bring up the Clinton Administration; and this has never been central (or even peripheral) to my arguments.

As for the confiscatory tax rates of an earlier time, it is astounding to me that you would appear to defend them.

Are you really suggesting that a marginal rate of 80 percent is perfectly acceptable, by your lights?

If so, you have far more faith in European-style redistributionist policy than I do.



I certainly would not use words that appear to applaud an 80 percent tax rate, as you have done. See above.



It is noteworthy, I believe, that left-of-center thinkers never admit to spending anymore--perhaps it is because the tax-and-spend mantra has not been congenial to their interests--but have instead found a useful weasel word in "investing."

The term "sustainable energy" is typically used by those who wish to tax gasoline out of existence, even before the natural supply of oil is exhausted (the timing for "peak oil" differs greatly, according to whom one chooses to believe), and before we have developed a serious alternative, at a consumer-friendly price. (If this does not dovetail with your own views in this regard, I will take you at your word on that.)

As for the (allegedly) "bloated military," this term suggests to me that you would prefer that America retrench from its role as a great power, and accept the eviscerated military that the Europeans have embraced. And I find such a sentiment highly disturbing.