In response to:

What Price 'Fairness'?

lviathan Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 9:21 PM
This is a well thought out and arranged argument, even if I don't disagree with it. If the thesis were correct, why didn't the system collapse in early eras with much higher marginal rates on the highest earners?
Dan 292 Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 10:10 PM
Because, from time to time, in our system, we have to good sense to vote wisely and bring in fiscal respoonsible people who lay a budget on us. In some cases, even a Balanced one! Then set us on a course that increases the hope of a return on investments without that return being redistributed by the progressives. That buys us time! But then, the progressives come back with the old mantra "Tax breaks for the richest 1 per cent on the backs of the poor and the middle class and schools and firemen and policemen and babies and puppies and kittens," etc, and the sheeple get their hankies out and buy it and vote them back in! And away we go again!
Realistic Republicans understand that President Obama and the Democrats head into fiscal cliff negotiations in a far stronger bargaining position now than in 2011. When voters were asked on Nov. 6 whether they favored raising taxes to reduce the deficit, a total of 60 percent said yes (47 percent favored increasing taxes for those who earn $250,000 or more, and 13 percent approved tax increases for all).

So taxes will be going up. As a matter of political strategy -- not to say survival -- Republicans will have to agree to raise taxes on those defined as rich. It's...