Mirror rant
Posted on:: November 9th, 2004
Dean’s World replies to John Perry Barlow‘s attempt at reconciliation, smacking it upside the head. The post is angry, ranting, and paints a convincing and distressingly believable picture of how folks like me look like to folks like him. (See also the long comment thread to my blogging of Barlow’s piece.)
Categories: Uncategorized dw
“So, if the champions of the flat tax just want the rich to pay less (note his Type M argument), then by obvious implication, I’m either stupid, deceptive, or evil for having promoted it above. ”
No one said those things about you Brad. I challenge you to find the words in this thread.
Should I take, from *your* inferance, that if there are two opinions on a subject, that one side is correct and the other “stupid, deceptive, or evil”? Of course not.
I always find it curious when people put words in others mouths to push an arguement somewhere.
I thus conclude that “simplicity” is simply a propaganda tactic in order to sell the idea of lower taxes on the rich as some sort of decluttering measure.
…
The *noise* generated to obscure this simple fact, to try to get people to think that “less taxes on the rich == simpler taxes”, is symptomatic of the political debate.
The funny part is if you scroll up I tell you the prime motivation for simplicity: that the tax code should not be used to implement social policy. But hey, better to conclude I’m shilling for “the rich”, just like everyone else who favors a flat tax. This is exactly why you guys lose elections. You accuse people of having improper or nefarious motivations and they look at themselves and say, “no, those are not my motivations nor are they likely the motivations of people we support” and they conclude that people on your side wouldn’t be good leaders.
No, Lion, we’re going to disagree respectfully and will ask the same in return. And in that context, if you still want to be confrontational, we’ll hand you a shovel ;-).
Most of us believe we’re on the side of the angels Brad, and a lot of us are miffed when a critic points out the downside of whatever we’re trying to advance. It would be surprising if there are many Wall Street brokers who don’t think that their prosperity is automatically linked to the welfare of the country as a whole. To most of them, Bush’s privatization scheme must be just another example of that happy coincidence, more than justifying the resources they’ve selflessly donated to the president’s re-election.
On the other point, taxes, no matter what kind they are, have social implications — that is inescapable. Seth was pointing out one consequence of a flat tax. Do you think he was out of line in suspecting that some of its potential beneficiaries are as aware of that as he is?
You Suck like poop