The tension between those who want a smaller central (aka Federal) government and a larger one (sometimes known as the nanny state) has been going on since the runaway convention that drafted our Constitution.
Indeed, Alexander Hamilton wrote just a few days after the proposed Constitution was made public that he hoped that soon the States would be entirely dissolved and replaced with “districts” organized under the new system of government.
I am not a trained economist and thus am only qualified to offer my opinion as to which (large or small) is preferable. For that matter I have a difficult time remembering when the trained economists turned out to be right either.
Which system you prefer is not the topic of this article.
We are either going to go over the “Fiscal Cliff” on the first day of the year or we are going to slide a long way down it. Enough time does not remain for congress to solve its problems comprehensively. We might instead see some provisions of the law that are scheduled to go into effect January 1 changed at the last minute.
This article is not about the cliff either.
When talking with friends and acquaintances that prefer the larger government approach I am frequently puzzled by the smile (sometimes even a sneer) that comes over their faces when they relish increasing the taxes on higher earners. Some will even seriously discuss the need to reduce spending. Some of us from both sides agree on that.
The joy they seem to get out of raising the tax rates on some other people just does not make sense to me. It is not that they want to change the rates — it is that they seem to take joy in doing so. I find it difficult to determine what their thinking is.
It makes me think of Ayn Rand’s predicted Fair Share Law in “Atlas Shrugged”.
I personally believe that a “progressive” tax system can make sense, but not if the lowest rate is zero or even negative. Everyone should pay some portion of our spending burden. Any system that creates two groups of citizens, those who do not pay and those who pay, is destructive of our republican form of government. As long as one group can vote to enjoy the benefits of government while making someone else pay for it we are headed for serious trouble.
So my question is “why are they smiling?”. What is the cause of that particular emotion?
We deserve better.
elpasospeak 
What will the voting outcomes on tax rates look like when 51% of the voters pay no income tax at all?
LikeLike
LikeLike