Comment on Taxes by IQ by TBSchemer
I assume you're trying to provoke here, trying to hang liberals on their own rope by pointing out the ridiculous conclusions that result when you follow their philosophy to its logical extremes. The problem is this: "...the purpose of government is to make sure everyone with an unfair advantage pays their fair share..." Huh? That's a new one...certainly not part of the liberal philosophy that I'm familiar with. Maybe you meant that people who are able to contribute more should do so. That's called progressive taxation, and it's a strictly financial concept.
The problem is, when I debate the issue of taxation with the people on this board, the justification for all the class warfare nonsense always comes down to neutralizing unfair advantages. The way this last election was carried out, the message that ultimately won votes was, "Mitt Romney is rich and white, making him a bad person, so you should vote for Obama to keep Romney out of office." None of the policy discussions ended up mattering in the end- the exit polls showed widespread agreement with Romney's particular policy initiatives, even as he lost handily.
I don't think that was the message that ultimately won votes. Maybe the "rich and white" part, but more likely followed up by "so he doesn't really understand and is not committed to helping a large portion of the population". That message was reinforced by many of his boneheaded statements during the campaign. That, and his morphing from a MA moderate to a severe conservative, and back again. I wanted to think he was a moderate, but really I wasn't sure what he was going to do when he took office.