If your concept of taxation is based on “fairness” then you are a Marxist. The idea that it’s wrong to make large somes of money because the income gap is too large has nothing to do with helping poor people earn more money. It’s a redistribution of wealth for no other reason than an arbitrary sense of what is fair. It’s Marxism.
Any economic policy that focuses on distributional fairness rather than economic efficiency is Marxist? Or are you limiting your argument to taxes?
From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs. That’s a Marxist viewpoint.
From a non-Marxist philosophy the concept of poverty relief should center on providing the tools necessary to succeed. It should not pit the wealthy against the poor. The “pie” is not a fixed entity and should not be treated as such.
delete mispost
Yes they do.
The only thing this shows is that you don’t understand what Marxism is. Hell, the concept of a “fair” tax being a contribution “from each according to his ability” doesn’t even originate with Marx: it’s from that great libertarian hero Adam Smith!
No worries. We libertarian-ish types are used to being called conservatives around here. I just don’t like it when it’s used as some type of indication of hypocrisy on my part, since I don’t agree with real conservatives like Mr Moto all that much.
I know of very few politicians, Dem or Pubbie, so don’t hold that view. Are they all Marxists, including Bush and McCain? I don’t see them calling for a flat tax.
True, though Marx probably got it from Louis Blanc and/or Henri de St. Simon and/or the Book of Acts.
And who holds this idea that it is WRONG to make large sums of money?
Nice man o’ straw.
Exactly right John Mace. Macgiver’s views on this are completely off in right field. He should really be reading Kimstu’s posts more carefully, and responding to them. In particular, I’d like to hear his response to the Reagan quote:
So Reagan was a Marxist, right Macgiver?
All Macgiver has done is come up with a definition of 'Marxism" that nobody would ever agree with. ie: Obama is a Marxist if we define Marxist as: anybody who every says the words “fair” and “tax” in the same sentence"
This is nonsense. The Smith quote addresses only the “from each” half of the Marxist tenet, where’s the “to each” half? Also, as one might expect, the Smith quote fits nicely with a flat tax or a sales tax.
A more progressive tax structure is nothing close to Socialism. Socialism is the state controlling the means of production. I mean if Obama is more Socialist than McCain then Bush is the re-incarnation of Eugene Debs.
No, not a sales tax:
“in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy”
Not “in proportion to the consumption which they respectively engage in.”
This sounds like something that Palin regurgitated somewhere. All you need to do is throw in a gratuitous “and also” to really make it resonate.
If our tax code isn’t already based on this so-called Marxist viewpoint, then why doesn’t someone tell the IRS? I could have swore that we have things called tax brackets that result in high-income earners paying proportionally more in taxes than those at low end. If the consideration for differing abilities and needs isn’t behind our current tax structure, what could be? Sushi rolls and grape kool-aide?
One thing I wish Obama would do is emphasize that he’s not actually raising the taxes of the top 5% to unprecedented levels. He’s simplying returning their taxes to the way they were prior to Bush’s cuts. I’ve seen no evidence that those cuts have done anything except exacerbate our deficit. They certainly haven’t helped the economy.
The socialist nominee for president, Brian Moore, was on Colbert.
Assuming he knows , he claims Obama is clearly not a socialist.
Case closed,
I see your point, but I think a sales tax, as the sole tax, does fulfill the quote. People spend money commensurate with their ability to do so. If I buy food, necessary clothing (from a place like Target) and a $20,000 car, because that’s what I can afford, and you buy very expensive clothes, jewelry, five flat screen TVs for your mansion, a $100,000 car or two, a yacht and Gulfstream V, you’re paying WAY more in taxes than I am.
No?
Yah, because someone with 50% of the vote wouldn’t be a problem for his campaign. 
The tax code isn’t based on a candidate’s concept of what is fair. So no, it’s not based on Marxism. Obama and Biden, on the other hand, are waging a class warfare campaign complete with threats to any member of the MSM that they will be cut off if they ask an actual question. Beyond the Chavez like nature of this, it doesn’t speak well for a politician who can’t handle the pressure of a REPORTER.
Did the Kool-Aid (sorry, Flavor-Ade) taste good?
West, the reporter that you obliquely mention, has been connected very firmly to the Republican party. There’s not a legitimate journalist who thinks her interrogation of Biden was professional or fair.
And it’s not like McCain has been the portrait of openness and interview magnanimity. He’s shut out media outlets numerous times for the very “crime” he claims Obama is shutting out West and her station for. With much less actual reason behind it.
Is there some kind of genetic problem involved with being a Republican that prevents adherents from recognizing their own projective tendencies? Because it seems to be completely endemic to the party.
Reagan lowered taxes and raised revenue. Instead of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, he made the rich richer and siphoned off the spoils. You can’t grow an economy by raising taxes and Reagan understood this. I think there’s a Kennedy quote in there somewhere because he was one of the first to figure it out.