McCain defends progressive tax structure; argues it isn't socialism

[bascule]

 

Yes, out came the S-word! An aspiring young wingnut asked McCain why we have a progressive tax structure.

 

McCain's answer seems to describe Obama's tax plan...

[Realitycheck]

Geez, the people of this day and age are soooo unpatriotic.

 

There was a time when people were proud to pay 92% in taxes, right?

[Mr Skeptic]

Heh, heh. I saw that on the Daily Show, along with McCain defending the bailout as "an emergency, not socialism" and criticizing Obama for being socialist.

[iNow]

And the Daily Show took the clip from Meet the Press last Sunday, where McCain danced around the question saying how "A country does what it has to when it's people need help," without ever acknowledging that he was supporting the very socialism he and his partner have been railing against for a few weeks now.

 

Sad, really.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27387444#27387444

 

{roughly 15 minutes in}

Edited October 29, 2008 by iNow

[ecoli]

 

Yes, out came the S-word! An aspiring young wingnut asked McCain why we have a progressive tax structure.

 

McCain's answer seems to describe Obama's tax plan...

Old clip. And not wanting her father to have to pay 60% in taxes makes her a wingnut?

 

60% to taxes, another large chunk to malpractice insurers.... one would think we don't value doctors in this country.

 

Yes, they do still make quite a bit more than the national average, but why don't they deserve to keep this money again? And you accuse a perfectly legitimate question about the principles of taxation a wingnut?

 

Sorry bascule, I have to question your judgment behind that claim.

[iNow]

You don't have to be rude and "question his judgment." You can just say you disagree with his idea that rich should pay more without making it a character attack, or one on his critical thinking. Come on, ecoli.

[bascule]

Old clip. And not wanting her father to have to pay 60% in taxes makes her a wingnut?

 

Didn't hear anything about paying 60% of his income in taxes. The comparison of progressive taxation to slavery was what made me think she was a wingnut. That was enough to elicit boos from what was quite likely a pro-McCain crowd.

[ecoli]

Didn't hear anything about paying 60% of his income in taxes.

Pretty sure that's waht she said. I'll take another listen when I'm not at a public computer, though.

 

The comparison of progressive taxation to slavery was what made me think she was a wingnut. That was enough to elicit boos from what was quite likely a pro-McCain crowd.

Ok, but she clearly didn't think out the question beforehand, and therefore she probably didn't mean literal slavery in the way its commonly thought of these days (she was probably just a nervous public speaker)... but how is excessive taxation not akin to servitude to the government? The problem is, everybody has their own definition of excessive. Clearly, this woman thinks there's a better way for the government to conduct business than have high taxes - be it "progressive" or something else.

 

Her only crime, as far as I can tell, is being a nervous public speaker and not wanting to pay more in taxes. Oh but I forgot. That's

now.

[Sisyphus]

Nobody pays anything close to 60% taxes. Also, what's "unpatriotic" is avoiding paying taxes. Is that hard to understand?

[CaptainPanic]

I like the comparison with Sweden, where McCain says that "in the Swedish system it doesn't pay to work more than 6 months a year".

 

He did not reach any conclusion, he just assumed that people agree that it's a bad thing.

 

That was a bad argument, because Sweden happens to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. So, we must conclude that apparently the Swedish get something in return for their high tax rates. It is not wasted.

 

I'm not sure (I don't live there), but I bet that education is much cheaper there, they have healthcare for free and lots more things. A socialist government does more for its people... it's not necessarily bad... and I don't understand why people don't see that.

 

If you pay more tax, you get more in return (unless your government is known to spend more in "defense" (warfare) than all the rest of the world together).

[npts2020]

If you pay more tax, you get more in return

 

This was enough to get me started on a rant about you not having observed the American government at work.......til I saw this.

 

 

(unless your government is known to spend more in "defense" (warfare) than all the rest of the world together).

[bascule]

Ok, but she clearly didn't think out the question beforehand, and therefore she probably didn't mean literal slavery in the way its commonly thought of these days (she was probably just a nervous public speaker)

 

She certainly didn't seem nervous.

 

I'd like to propose Bascule's Corrolary to Godwin's Law: if you compare something which isn't slavery to slavery, you automatically lose the argument.

[Pangloss]

I think Bascule's Corrolary to Godwin's Law is like slavery.

 

Yup, works.

[ecoli]

She certainly didn't seem nervous.

look, I'm not trying to understand or debate the details of what the person says. I think her arguments have merit though, even if she didn't happen to argue them particularly well. Then again, that's why she's not a politician.

 

I've heard equally ridiculous arguments *for* progressive politics. While I would choose to argue against them on intellectual grounds, I wouldn't bash the person and use that to demonstrate the stupidity of progressive policies.

 

The person may not present the idea very eloquently, but that doesn't make them a wingnut. It just means she's a normal person and not a politician or economist. Probably a smart idea for all the frustration and stress I'm feeling right now.

[bascule]

look, I'm not trying to understand or debate the details of what the person says. I think her arguments have merit though, even if she didn't happen to argue them particularly well. Then again, that's why she's not a politician.

 

Her underlying argument was that a progressive tax structure is unfair. Her father makes more money, therefore he gets "penalized" by paying a higher percentage of his income as taxes.

 

The response to that is simple: he's not being "penalized" in the way that someone making less money but paying a higher percentage of their income would pay. When you raise taxes on the upper class, can they not make rent? Do they have to choose between paying rent and utilities versus eating? Do they worry about destroying their credit because they can't pay their credit cards? Do they worry about losing a house because they can't pay their mortgage?

 

I'm really sick of affluent wingnuts using the word "unfair" in regard to taxation. Know what's unfair? A member of a gay couple not being able to visit their spouse in a hospital. That is unfair. But being in a higher income bracket in America, especially under Bush? UNFAIR?! Are you kidding me?

 

The person may not present the idea very eloquently, but that doesn't make them a wingnut.

 

She's a wingnut first because she can't conceive any rationale for a progressive tax structure, secondly for comparing an upper class person being in a higher tax bracket to being a slave, someone who is effectively imprisoned and receives only room and board for their labor typically alongside brutal abuse, and third for making John McCain look like a liberal moonbat.