Alterform

Website Links

Description

Okay, so Ryan posted his reasons for not agreeing with Bush, and since I think we’re both arguing from the same foundation (that of a Judeo-Christian morality), I figured I could address his issues, and maybe get a good discussion out of this, as well as some clarity. For those who still contend that morality has no place in politics, the questions still stand. But let’s get to it: 1. "Bush gives tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporate while increasing taxes and cutting programs for the poor and the weak." This one SOUNDS like a good argument, but when you critically examine it, I feel that it comes up short. Right now, ~95% of the current tax revenue comes from the top 2% of earners in the country. That means that any even handed and fair tax break will give millions more to them than to others. Let’s just do the simple math: Bob RichieFancyPants is making 2 million dollars a year, is married, and has no children. Let’s say, for the sake of the discussion, that his current tax liability is around 50%. That means he owes one million dollars in taxes every year. Joseph HoboHasNoPants earns $30,000 dollars a year, and for the sake of discussion, say that his tax liability is 25%, which means that he owes $7,500 dollars. So let’s say that Bush cuts everyones taxes by 10%. So now, Bob RichieFancyPants now has an extra $200,000 floating around in his pocket, while Joseph HoboHasNoPants has an extra $3,000 in his bank account. So, yes, Bush just gave a fat tax credit to the rich. But is it immoral or unfair? I don’t think so, and here’s why: One, is that it was a completely even tax break. Two is that taxing someone harder because they make more money is just as unfair and immoral as taxing someone harder because they make less. However, there are many moral benefits to giving this money back to the person who earned it in the first place: Bob RichieFancyPants, even if he only spends a portion of that, will most definitely put it back into the economy. So let’s look at the options: Give the money to someone else Give the money to the person who earned it Now, on a moral level, the person who earned the money has the rights to that money. If we give it back to him, he will either spend the money on something he wants, which in turn helps everyone, or he could put it in the bank, where the bank will take the money, and use it in the economy, which again, helps everyone. Both of these options (spending or saving) actually benefit the poor much better than a direct handout in the form of welfare, or other social programs. Why? Because one method gives gainful employment and work to people who might not otherwise have it, and the other does not. This is fairly easy to prove. Bob RichieFancyPants takes his extra $200,000, and splurges on a yacht for himself and his wife. While this purchase was not a noble one, and would be considered selfish and extravagant by many, this purchase actually provides quite a few moral benefits to others. First is the boat builder, who is now able to feed his family, provide for adequate housing, good health care, and even luxuries.

Products & services

Similar companies nearby