It seems that we're talking past each other. I didn't say that the budget deficit should be closed entirely by raising taxes. Nor did I say that we should tax income that has already been taxed.
I disagreed with particular comment that could apply to any gov't tax or benefit. Maybe a different example would help.
You want to cut entitlements. Suppose you suggest a specific cut to SS benefits. This cut would apply to your benefits and everyone else in a similar situation.
Imagine a poster saying that you're not allowed to make that comment unless you are currently retired and writing checks each month to the Federal government for the difference between your current SS benefit and what it would be under your proposal.
I would disagree with that poster. When it comes to gov't, it's perfectly reasonable to say there are things I'm willing to do only on the condition that everyone else in my position does the same. In fact, that's why we fund the gov't with taxes instead of voluntary donations. (see "free rider dilemma")
I think Scrabbler's comment was on point.
Wanting capital gains or dividends to be taxed at ordinary rates is add odds with most of what has been done to reform income taxes based on an objective principle: income that has already been taxed should be taxed at a lower rate, or not at all.
Stating that such income should be taxed at a higher rate will not cause it to happen, as it is completly at odds with the objective standard of fairness I just stated.
To say all income should be taxed the same because it "spends the same" is very simplistic and ignores the fairness principle I stated without providing a new, superior principle.
Any tax can easily be judged as needing to be raised when we are running deficits. However closing that gap should be done in a way that reflects objective fairness, not simply raising taxes for their own sake.
The deficits are driven primarily by the growth of entitlements, and that is where the bulk of the deficit-cutting effort should be placed in my view. I think that is objectively true.
I am fine with your and any other opinion about only being willing to pay additional taxes if you could force others to pay those same taxes. My point is that statement would be far more powerful if someone is wiling to lead on an issue and do what they feel is right independently.
I did not make a statement prohibiting people's opinions. Instead I stated that people are free to do more about their strongly held opinions than post about them here.
No person has a way to personally cut government spending. But anyone can strike a powerful blow for their view of fairness by paying taxes at any level they wish. It is a key difference.
Thanks for the discussion.
