4.) Revenue-neutral tax policy is pervasive idea, no matter how flawed it is in the context of reform. If we’re just shifting pieces around in the pie chart, which is what the advisory panel on tax reform essentially concluded, why bother? But what do I know, the government works perfectly. Reform is unnecessary. Or, as this commenter wrote:
The only reason we have to have this conversation is that we’ve decided that we need (like the rest of the industrialized world) a fairly large central government.
5.) The rich benefit more from government than the poor, so the rich should pay more for those services. It doesn’t make sense to me, either.
6.) People have faith in capitalism, but only when it’s centrally planned by the government. I guess I misunderestimated the definition of capitalism, so this is wrong:
Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.
I blame Oliver Stone.
Quick side note- used a clip of Oliver Stone’s from JFK in a media course, discussed how it distorted the entire JFK debate, and spent a whole hour discussing the fall-out from the movie, the reaction in the news, the experts who came forward to lambast Stone, etc., and after all that, did an informal poll of the students to compare with an informal poll I had done before class. Before class, people were split 50-50 as to whether it was one shooter or a conspiracy. After the class, despite me driving home the no-conspiracy angle, the class was split 60-40 in favor of conspiracy.
That is how persuasive I am.