President Bush’s bipartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform should propose a measure to assist a neglected segment of society: the avowedly under-taxed. The H.O.T. Tax would give those who think their levies are too low the ability to pay the steeper tax bills they say they deserve **-taken from human events online**
(H.O.T= Higher-rate Optional Tax)

The H.O.T., or Higher-rate Optional Tax, would offer relief to powerful Democrats and wealthy liberals who cannot stand it when Republicans cut their taxes. The H.O.T. Tax would ease these statists’ pain. The IRS simply would add a small box to the 1040 tax form beside these words:

“If you believe you should be taxed at a rate above that assigned to your income bracket, please indicate here the higher rate you prefer. Kindly calculate your tax liability, and send it in.”


Questions for Debate:

1. Would an optional tax be utilized by those whom lambast "tax cuts for the rich"?
Senator John Kerry (D – Mass.) sailed into hot water last year when tax returns revealed that he also paid the Bay State’s lower tax rate. Kerry thus enjoyed state tax cuts akin to the federal tax reductions he excoriated on the campaign trail. Then again, perhaps he intended to pay Massachusetts’ higher rate, but his calculator slid off his yacht.
2. Would such a reform actually increase the tax revenue of the federal government?

1. Would an optional tax be utilized by those whom lambast "tax cuts for the rich"?

Probably not, because there would be no expectation of appreciable gain for the payer. It's a classic incentive trap scenario. Let's use the hypothetical example of a credit card. As with any credit, the more you charge, the more you have to pay. Now suppose you share this credit card account with 250 million people. Like all credit cards, everyone likes to charge, and no one really likes to pay. At the end of the month, each person has to pay a percentage of the bill, or everyone goes further into debt with the associated problems. What if you are given the option of whether or not you wish to pay more of your 1/250,000,000th share? It wouldn't add to spit in the ocean and you'd be throwing your money away. The only way to circumvent such a dilemma is to require everyone pay into it.

2. Would such a reform actually increase the tax revenue of the federal government? No.

1. Would an optional tax be utilized by those whom lambast "tax cuts for the rich"?

I rather doubt it would be used by "the rich" - even if there were incentives. They could already pay more of their share of taxes by seeking fewer loopholes in existing tax law - were they so motivated. But if there were an incentive - if, say, such an option promised universal healthcare, I would certainly opt to pay more taxes and I would do so gladly - and I am far from rich. When I was making decent money - for quite a few years in Ireland - I paid about a third more in taxes than I ever have here. But, with that, I reaped enormous benefits. Had it not been the national health program in that enlightened country, for example, I would still be paying for an eight-day hospital stay ten years ago. Or I would be bankrupt and homeless.

2. Would such a reform actually increase the tax revenue of the federal government?

Again, unless there were discernable benefits, I doubt it. If such a tax did promise a national healthcare, for example, I still suspect that those opting for the higher tax would be middle and working class liberals like myself. And, as with the current tax system, we would continue subsidizing those who a) most benefit from our tax dollars and b) are quickest to support the tax cuts from which they will never benefit.

1. Would an optional tax be utilized by those whom lambast "tax cuts for the rich"?

This has to be quite possibly the dumbest proposal I have heard coming out of Washington since Congress started getting involved with steroids in Baseball. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the argument against Bush's tax cuts.


If you really believe that is the reason that liberals and Democrats oppose the Bush tax cuts then perhaps you ought to do a little more research or I don't know look at any of the debates on that subject we have hosted here.

The Bush tax cuts were completely and utterly financially irresponsible given the fact that we are spending BILLIONS each day on a war. I think that all but the most die hard party loyalists realize that, secretly or openly.

The other complaint that "liberals and Democrats" have about the tax cuts is they completely ignore basic economic concepts such as the marginal propensity to consume. People who are less wealthy have a much higher MPC - they'll spend anything they get back and put it directly back into the economy. People who are more wealthy have a much lower MPC and high MPS and therefore it won't do the kind of good the tax cuts are supposed to be designed to do.

Politicians in general are terrible with money and most of the democrats in Congress are no exception although some of them get it. I personally think we need to be spending our money more wisely but of course that would eliminate all of the fun pork projects and cushy government positions.

Finally, this ignores basic human nature. Find me a person that says "yes I'd like to pay more taxes please, let me check this box" and I'll show you a financial idiot.

Liberals believe the government is in a unique position to advance society and that is the basis of a lot of programs we support. If I knew my extra tax dollars were going to Universal Health Care and not to fund the next war cooked up by the PNAC then I'd support a universal tax increase or diversion provided there was a solid plan behind it.


I'd be willing to bet you $20 that Kerry doesn't even do his own taxes, he hires an accountant and then just signs off on it. Last time I checked an accountant's SOLE purpose was to help you pay as little in taxes as possible.

2. Would such a reform actually increase the tax revenue of the federal government?No - see the answer to number 1.

Oh Boy... here we go CJ. We can debate all day long about where the tax cuts went, but what I'm asking is for liberal whining politicians pandering to the American idealism that the "rich" got the tax cuts, of which they benefited from, to send in the money to the government that they feel the "rich" deserve to pay. It's a put your money where your mouth is idea.

You can throw rhetorical remarks about MPC, but that idea is/has been debated to no end. Liberals and Conservatives don't necessarily agree. Ok. That horse is dead.

I understand the marginal propensity to consume, have read nearly a million reports that came from liberal and conservative think tanks alike, and this thread has nothing to do with that... it has to do with moral fortitude and public attacks on tax codes that many liberals voted for. What's that statement about standing for something or falling for anything????....

What I'm saying is, does anyone really believe what these policiticans and hollywood liberals are stating about the tax code? Didn't it get approved by Congress??? (overwhelmingly.... by the way)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep23.html

Regardless, what are they doing with the money they saved??? Is it being donated to charity? Is it being ear-marked for social issues they claim to care about??? Let's all take a wild guess...

AND IF IT'S SO BAD, Why don't they contribute what they believe they owe, in order to prove their idealism in reference to these cuts? ? ? To me, it's a moral issue and has everything to do with political integrity... if there's any left (on either side of the aisle!!! )

Are you saying that you agree with the politicians that publicly oppose lower taxation, but privately seek out more tax shelters????

What's not to agree with? Giving thousands of extra dollars to the US government over and above what you owe will make absolutely no difference to policies & programs you support, but will cost you personally a lot of money.

This is a completely different thing from supporting higher taxes for a significant part of the population, which will cost you but will also result in adequate funding for programs and policies you believe in.

It's the difference between a completely ineffectual personal sacrifice on the one hand, and the creation or continuation of adequately funded government programs on the other.

Where's the mystery?

I suppose you focused on the words "John Kerry" and ignored the rest of my post. Here's some advice, let him go, we don't care about him anymore and I'm not sure why you do. Because if you had read the rest of my post you'd see that this proposal is patently ridiculous because it is against human nature and common sense. I will requote a small portion of it:


There you go, aevans that is why no one is going to pay additional taxes "optionally" of the liberal persuasion because it will do absolutely no good.

As a hypothetical example if I believed the issue I wanted to correct could be helped with additional funding what good will paying additional taxes do there? Does that guarantee that the program will get funded? Absolutely not. I'll probably end up funding the war or ineffective abstinence programs given this administration.


I don't even know where to start on this one Aevans, but you really need to get over your emotions on this one because it appears to be clouding all judgement. Nothing in my post in anyway suggested or implied that statement.

I'll say it again if you seriously think anyone with the smallest shred of common sense is going to "optionally" pay more taxes then I hope you aren't disappointed easily.

There is a lot of rhetoric about Tax Cuts. Many economists agree that lower taxes leads to job growth. The budget deficit is annoying but in terms of the percentage size of GDP it is not an imminent threat and is trending down. I am very annoyed with Bush's spending spree, but as the economy continues to grow, the tax revenues will increase. The deficit is likely to become a bigger problem as Medicare and Social Security move closer to bankruptcy.

Regardless of political rhetoric unemployment is going down and more jobs are being created. Obviously, the war and gas prices are hurting American confidence in the economy, but economic fundamentals are in good shape. The tax cuts helped more than they hurt. Now Bush needs to tighten up spending.

Good job with the rhetorical remarks, but again CJ , you neither prove any point nor address the question directly.

The point of this thread was to discuss the moral obligation of those vehemently opposed to tax cuts, while using accountants and tax shelters to "loosen their personal tax burdens". It's a moral issue, an issue of character, but not of where the money will go. Your mention of "this administration" doesn't have any bearing on reality, as we all know that there are abundant wastes of tax dollars on both sides of the aisle. There, contrary to your beliefs, many decisions made by Democrats in congress! This is less about partisan politics but more about personal accountability.

My emotions? See what you wrote sir:
"Does that guarantee that the program will get funded? Absolutely not. I'll probably end up funding the war or ineffective abstinence programs given this administration"
(Seriously.... pot callin' the kettle black if you ask me. )

A good illustration on the other side of the party lines is Rush Limbaugh. He was lambasted on every news outlet in the country for purchasing drugs illegally, while he'd previously spoken negatively about illicit drug use. (regardless of what he used the drugs for or what documented ailment he had... I don't advocate purchasing drugs illegally).

How would we feel if GW got a mistress pregnant and took her to get an abortion? What would the media reaction be to that, considering his typically pro-life stance?

It's like telling your kids not to smoke while you speak with a cigarrette hanging out of the corner of your mouth.

That being said, there have been numerous Democrats that publicly lambast the very tax structure that seems to fit them the best, while behind closed doors attempt to find nooks and crannies to hide income from the IRS.
Again, not partisan politics... personal accountability. Character.
It's the "do as I say not as I do" mentality...

This whole thread is funny. The entire purpose of this supposed legislation is to point out the rhetoric, and this thread surely shows it is achieving its goal. I don't think those from the liberal party can really understand the presumed hyprocrisy this is addressing, so I'll attempt to put it forth. One of the main gripes of fiscal conservatives with the Democratic stance is the basic supposition that it isn't right to take money from one group and give it to another. This also leads to the supposition that its awfully easy to vote for programs that someone else is paying for. This is then particularly galling when those who so strongly support these programs then take every advantage they can to , essentially, minimize their contributions to them. So, a bill was created, for purely political purposes, to highlight this. To attempt to argue against it on reasonable grounds is missing the point...it is inherently meant to be irrational. Personally, I think its a good tactic, politically, and this thread itself is demonstrating its effectiveness.



CJ, I don't think it was ever intended to demonstrate any relation to the argument against Bush's tax cuts. I think you will agree that the 'average' American doesn't pay much attention to politics. This proposal simply creates an easy way for the Republicans to make some political hay. As Aevans points out, its merely a way for the Republicans to create a "why don't you put your money where your mouth is" slogan against many of their opponents. You think having a long discussion about tax cuts, etc. will really register on most voters? I don't think so. Democrats especially have been great at creating such rallying crys in the past, this is just a bit of tit for tat. Actually, I've often wondered why such bills haven't been put forward in the past. They are an excellent way to back your opponent into a political corner. Those in it can try all they want to explain their way out of it, and all it will take is repeating "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is", or, even better "Hypocrit!", and Wham!...they're right back in the corner. It's a policital corner....logic isn't what led to it, logic isn't what will get anyone out.

So if rational argument is irrelevant, what's the point of bringing it up on a Debate website? Just to celebrate how politically clever it is, in spite of its wrongheadedness? IMO that makes it a bad thing, not something to support.



aevans176, I don't get where character comes into it, except that it's fun to accuse one's political opponents of hypocrisy (whether it's true or not).

aevans, your position seems to be that the only way to ethically oppose tax cuts is to give up money out of one's own pocket. But why? Why should someone be obligated to make a useless sacrifice just because he thinks tax cuts are a bad idea?

A politician opposing tax cuts isn't saying "I think you all should feel a personal obligation to kick in more money, but I'm not going to put in more myself". He's saying "I think that the govt buget requires X dollars, and the best way to acheive this is a certain tax rate". It's not hypocrisy because the opponent of tax cuts will also be paying more.




No it's not. Tax-cut opponents aren't saying that people shouldn't pay the minimum amount required by law; they're saying that the minimum amount required by law should not be reduced.

1. Would an optional tax be utilized by those whom lambast "tax cuts for the rich"?

Being a fiscal conservative, myself, I find the whole "borrow and spend" policies of Dubya's regime to be distasteful at best. For me tax cuts are fine as long as a commensurate revenue stream is emplaced to ensure that the government doesn't spend beyond its means. To address the debate question directly:

I agree with Hobbes that this whole thing is merely a political gotcha. However, if it were really seriously considered, then I would propose a "line-item" tax to go along with the a "how much you wish to pay". In other words, if I get to choose how much money I wish to give, then I ought also to be able to choose how and where its spent.

2. Would such a reform actually increase the tax revenue of the federal government?

Calling such a proposal a "reform" is like calling a murder an extroverted suicide. But, anyway, I highly doubt such a proposal would increase revenue significantly. It's against one's economic self-interest (though that's not to say that there wouldn't be some "principled" folks doing it). Still, it would be interesting to see how corporations would choose to follow such a taxation scheme.

Translation- "So what if I have more money than I could ever need (according to the "gods" of however much "more" is and whatever "need" is)! And nevermind my rhetoric about a moral obligation to help those "in need". I personally will not part with one cent unless all the other "haves" are forced by law to hand over a similar potion of their "excess" wants and "needs".



Is that what the difference is? So, as a "wealthy" "progressive", your voluntary extra ten, twenty, one hundred thousand dollars, would be "completely ineffectual" in helping at least a few of the "downtrodden"?

So your motto is "If I help not all, then let me help none!" Or-

"You first man!"... Or-

"I'll help, that is, if (and only if) others help exactly as much as I do."

The point is that if a Republican, per se, was a proponent of cause ______, but did exactly the opposite, he'd be called out on every national news show on the television.

Let's use a cause such as lowering consumption of fossil fuels, like maybe gasoline. Can you imagine what would happen if a Republican then drove a Ford Expedition (or some other large SUV)????

The idea that sending in hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very liberal senators that lambast the tax structure wouldn't make a difference to something/someone is absurd. If we pooled everyone that publicly threw this tax structure under the bus and had them send in "what they felt they owed", who knows what we'd get!?!?!?! What if they didn't send it into the gov't, but decided collectively to spend the money on a "bleeding heart" cause for the poor? That might suffice. Instead they hire accountants to exploit the very tax code that they publicly oppose.

Don't you think someone like Ted Kennedy has a team of accountants? ? Why isn't he just like the rest of America whom has to file on Turbo Tax? Oh- because he has precious millions to protect, and the IRS has loop holes... what a pillar of character... (**Oh, and why don't we ever address the tax code as opposed to the tax cuts??? It's not like middle classed people like ourselves get to exploit the same loop holes as the uber-rich...**)

The point is to recognize it for what it is, and debate it on those grounds. This is merely a political ploy, and should be discussed as such. It is designed to mute such arguments, and does so effectively. Arguing against it essentially proves its purpose, as it is designed to back those arguing against it into a corner. The discussions going on here demonstrate that. The real debate, IMHO, should be to its effectiveness as a political tool, not its merits as legislation.



Not only fun, but quite possibly highly effective polically. The purpose of this bill is to create this very characterization.



This goes beyond just the tax cuts. One of the fundamental liberal beliefs is that the government is an effective tool for solving social ills. If that is indeed the case, and liberals are indeed concerned with these social ills, why do they not send the government all the money they can? Sending in the minimum required indicates minimum adherence to those beliefs, does it not? This is essentially the corner this bill is designed to back people into. Tax cuts are only a secondary issue here.

Okay, if the point is to feel "moral superiority" to one's political opposites, then I could see where an anti-war Congresscritter would propose the following legislation:

All those who were/are for the war in Iraq (including politicians) must spend at least 6 months on the front lines in Iraq to prove their political beliefs.

In fact, I could see the "usefulness" of political ploys such as this being played out in Congress all the time. Against health care reform? Fine, you must go without any health benefits for one or more years. Want to fundamentally change Social Security? Okay then, you must forfeit your benefits in the current program to conform to the proposed program. Wish to make it harder to immigrate to the US? That's fine; you must renounce your citizenship and then reapply.

This list could go on forever. What purpose does it serve? Nothing really...except you get an opportunity to feel "morally superior". Bleh.

Hobbes that is so completely flawed I don't even know where to begin. It isn't about sending money it is about where the money is spent. You could send all the money you wanted to, that doesn't guarantee that a dime of it would be spent on the things you feel are important.

Nice idea that would not work. As stated above the liberals like Kerry that whine about the issue do all they can to limit their tax bite. Meanwhile the rest of us either pay or will be paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax). This nasty tax, designed to insure the “rich” always pay taxes is now hitting the middle class and will move it’s way down. No indication that Congress is willing to do anything to stop it.

I think theres a little miscommunication going on here. I think CJ actually pinned this thread correctly when he stated that this bill misses the point. Allow me to explain.

Lets take a scenario where three companies are all polluting a river. The CEO of one company wants the entire industry to stop polluting, but the other two wish to continue. In this case, the one CEO's goal is to save the river and that is not accomplished by him stopping his machines. He would need EVERYONE to stop their machines in order for the river to remain unpolluted, asking him to stop his one company from polluting misses what he's trying to accomplish.

Tying that back into tax policy, it is a Macro-economic issue that requires everyones participation to be effective. If liberals need the group as a whole to act in a certain manner, that would not be accomplished by just them acting in that manner. The river would still be unclean, or in this case, our tax policy would still be functioning improperaly. I'm sure if they thought paying more taxes would encourage eveyrone to pay more taxs, they would do it. Good luck on that one though.

In searching through old threads tonight for something completely different, I recalled this link: Gifts to the United States.



This site almost seems like a joke doesn't it?


Your first question was best answered by Cube Jockey already in this thread. Your second question is moot considering we already have this option. So we're back to Cube Jockey's contention - (and correct me if I'm mischaracterizing this) some Democrats feel we do not need to take in more revenue but to spend what we are taking in elsewhere.

This is a good analogy. Yes, I can see sense of this, although I think asking someone to make a lifestyle change (eg start recycling, buy American) is less extreme than asking them to sign away $$$.

I think that this is indeed a matter of degree, and of good faith; if this hypothetical Republican switched to a hybrid, one opponent might be mollified, while another might say, "If you were really committed, you'd arrange your life so you could sell your car and use only a bike. So no, I won't vote for your Clean Air bill." Thus, at some point it becomes an excuse to shut down the other guy's case without having to come with a legitimate counter argument.

So I guess it should be factored in when determining whether to vote for a certain policy, but it shouldn't be used to summarily toss it out without consideration. Having said that, l agree with Hobbes that this HOT thing was indeed a bad-faith proposal intended to do just that.

What the heck is the point there CJ? ? ? ?
Who does get the money spent in places that we want it to???

Seriously, history tells us that pork-belly and special interest programs have an always exist in our gov't, as well as probably every other industrialized nation in the world.

I drive by road construction that doesn't need to be done every day, then drive down roads that haven't been touched in 20 years. Why?? Because I live in a nice/new part of town and work in an older one. No one cares about the part of Dallas I work in.

I see city/state/federally funded programs every day that I believe are a waste of our tax dollars, but we don't make the budget, as it's a group effort by which congress can approve/dis-approve.

This is about character. This is about backbone. This is probably why liberals don't understand this thread...

The point is that you cannot complain about gasoline consumption and drive a Large SUV and still get respect. If Mr Kerry complains about the tax cuts and how it benefits the rich, which was the point of the thread, then hires a team of accountants to find ways for him to get out of paying taxes... he's a hypocrit. Point blank. Do you think that privately, if they raised taxes in his family, that he wouldn't complain and hire more accountants to build loop holes???

You can't say early in the thread that the money won't amount to a hill of beans, and then later state that it's not about the money, but rather where it's spent. That's sincere vacillation... umm... just like Mr. Kerry in the elections!

People lambast the President for initiating a war when he wouldn't fight himself. This is like Democrats calling for tax hikes that they ultimately won't pay for....

CJ, I understand...but again, this is a purely political ploy. It isn't intended to get anyone to pay the additional tax; doing so would in fact negate its purpose. Now, the argument you present here could be used politically as well, as an opening to discuss, as you say, how the money is being spent. However, that would require some explanation, which puts it at a disadvantage in the war of political words. I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it is intentionally flawed...it is that very flaw which makes it an effective political tool.




BH, to follow your analogy, I think this bill is more like the other two companies pointing out that the third, while decrying the pollution, is still polluting. Sure, he might have good reasons for doing so, but pointing this out will still make him look bad.



Logo, I don't think it's about moral superiority...it's about scoring political points. Something I think it will prove to be effective at.

... because liberals don't know anything about character and backbone, huh aevans176? They're all a bunch of spineless degenerates!



This is what I mean about using it as an excuse to shut down the other guys argument without having to provide a counter-argument.

You seem to be saying that if the guy proposing it fails to make a good-faith, symbolic, very probably futile sacrifice, then you don't even have to consider his original rational for a given tax rate. Even though instituting his policy will indeed cost him more in income taxes over the current rate.



Well, what if I said that questions about a leader's personal past shouldn't affect US policy today? Which is consistent with my view that how much "extra" a politician decides to give the IRS doesn't have anything to do with how sound or fair his tax proposals are?

If the idea is, "give the minimum required, but raise the minimum", these guys aren't hypocrits. They aren't sticking their necks out in an impeccably principled way, but they aren't asking something of others that they aren't willing to do either.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. We can quibble over wording all day. And how does one score political points in this context sans moral superiority? Perhaps, these would-be points-makers are acknowledging their moral inferiority ? But, let's score some "political points" by passing a bill requiring all those in favor of the Iraq War to man the front lines.


Great, aevans. Now, you're calling those who self-identify as liberal as both spineless and without character. I consider myself neither liberal nor conservative, but I can tell you this. I find it unlikely that the reason folks are making good, consistent, rational arguments in opposition to your position is because they fit into your ad hominem categorization. I find it much more likely that it is in fact you who does not understand or chooses not to understand the points they are making. I believe (and I'm sure the moderators would agree) that this type of insulting commentary has no place in AD.

Are you stating that anytime there is a difference in political beliefs, that this implies moral superiority? While I think far too many times that turns out to be the case (which is why these debates often get so heated), I would hope that is not your default position. If it is not, then it quite possible to point out those areas where you differ with your political opponents without making any claims of moral superiority.

I would add, however, that it is indeed a moral corner that this bill is attempting to back people into. Which is why I think the rational arguments presented against it are missing the point.

Quite the contrary; that's why I wrote "in this context". Clearly, differing political positions need not have anything to do with moral superiority. However, in this specific context, the bill is indeed about instituting a moral superiority.


I don't believe I miss the point. However, I do miss the usefulness. I think you're missing my point that it is not useful. It does nothing other than instill a feeling of moral superiority. If it does something else, then please by all means tell me what it is.

It would be nice if you'd quit distorting my arguments for your purposes. The first post I made in this thread still stands and I have not changed my position. And seriously, do you have to bring Kerry into every discussion? Stop living in 2004.

The points I have subsequently made have been an attempt to counter your nonsense logic here that because Democrats/Liberals would like the government to do more for the country that means that we'd voluntarily like to pay more taxes. If you can't see the nonsense in that suggestion I'm afraid there isn't much I can do to help out here and I'll leave you to it. There is a lot we could do just by spending our money more wisely and efficiently, and if I picked the right programs I bet I could even get a significant portion of the fiscally conservative segment of the Republican party to agree with me.

Hobbes actually gets it, even though I think it is a ridiculous political ploy.


The arguments you (aevans) are making lead people to believe you actually think this is a good idea

I don't think it is. I did catch the 'in this context''; just wanted to verify that we were on the same page. If anything, I think it is an attempt to portray those against the tax cuts as having an assumed moral superiority of their own...in that they are going to be portrayed as passing the tax buck off to others.



The usefulness remains to be seen. If it can be used to portray those liberals it is targeted at as having a hypocritical stance, then it has achieved its purpose. If it can't, or if through arguments such as CJ's it actually backfires, then it will not have achieved its purpose, and it would indeed be useless. Time will tell which it is....

In some sense, the arguments against cutting taxes for the rich is an argument of moral superiority. However, there is also a rational basis for the position. In contrast, this proposed bill is only about moral superiority, thus it serves no useful function. It's a waste of manpower; it's childish. What are we paying these legislators for in the first place? To propose bills of moral superiority and only moral superiority?


You don't need time to tell in this case. The deductive logic is plain for all to see. The bill has no useful purpose. Surely, you wouldn't support a similar bill to be passed requiring all Iraq War proponents to sign up for front line duty?

What are we talking about here - primary school? Or the Congress of the United States of America? If we're talking about who should be president of the Scrapbook Club, maybe this would be an effective ploy. But if we're addressing federal tax law, I would expect a bit more of our elected officials than counter-productive "nyah nyah nyah" proposals. If there were a single liberal politician who was actually on record as having said that they feel anyone's levies are too low, this might be an effective playground ploy.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth in the 21st century, the argument is not that the wealthiest Americans are paying too little tax, but that they are disproportionately benefitting from the Bush administration tax cuts - and numerous liberal politicians have argued that the tax cuts should be rolled back or should not be made permanent. Were that the case, they would "unbenefit" just like their conservative counterparts. Where's the hypocrisy?

To me, those who try to pass themselves off as a "big tent" party, yet raise a tent with a $200,000 admission fee are the real hypocrites. It's one thing to maybe use this kind of argument during the course of a low-level, counter-productive debate, but to actually consider raising it as a piece of joke legislation - which it seems you are advocating - is asinine.



I'm a liberal - it says so right over there in my profile. I have made one other contribution to this thread - you can read it again by clicking right here. Please tell me what I don't understand about this thread or take your inflammatory generalizations elsewhere.



Even if this idiotic proposal did demonstrate that opponents to the Bush administration tax cuts were hypocritical - and I fail to see how it does that, unless it's based on a total misreading of their opposition in the first place - what on God's earth would it achieve? How many citizens can you name right now that don't believe that politicians - all politicians - are hypocrites? Where's the "usefulness" in proving something that is a given? What does the ability to "effectively" call people names achieve? We have known for years that conservative politicians are astonishing hypocrites when it comes to, say, moral values. Has that made one iota of a difference on any level whatsoever?

I certainly hope that time won't tell us anything about this proposal, because that would mean that yet another totally ridiculous piece of legislation had made it to the floor of Congress, wasting even more time and money than the supremely pointless flag desecration act. If you really believe that this would be the best way to use the resources of the US Congress, Hobbes, you are far more frivolous - and take your politics much less seriously - than I would ever have imagined.