Sunday, May 14, 2006

How exactly does one 'sacrafice a tax cut'

When in doubt, frame in the contextual double-negative:
"And how do Democrats plan to pay for all this? By repealing the tax cut for the richest Americans. Because the least we can do for these troops who have endangered their lives and mental health is to sacrifice a tax cut for the wealthiest among us."
You don't 'sacrafice a tax cut', because that implies that everything should be taxed all the time, everywhere and at ridiculous percentages. Anything else is a 'tax cut' which can be potentially 'sacraficed'.
In this country, we first assume the federal government gets nothing, and then apportion how much will be paid for by whom by creating tax policy. From this perspective, there are no tax cuts, but rather when a tax is removed, we are moving back towards the normative 'government gets nothing' stance.
This argument is designed to create new taxes while avoiding the dirty words of 'new taxes'. Once a tax has been removed, that removal isn't something that can be 'sacraficed'. No, you need implement a 'new tax'.
It's okay by these guys, because it's only on 'the rich', and even though they're likely part of 'the rich', their business is well served by their purposes of lining up 'for' taxing themselves, as the additional popularity/profits will outweigh the additional taxes in net.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home