Howard Dean and the allocation of the tax burden. [View All]

I was in the middle of typing this post when the epic thread to which I was going to add it got locked. I know this is a retread of an extensively discussed issue. However, I thought that I might have hit upon a more eloquent way of making my point. I know where this is headed. Nonetheless...


Dean has said that the middle class will be asked to pull their weight just like the supper rich. He has conflated middle class economic interests with the wealthy (which is a problem in and of itself). He has said, essentially, don't expect a lowering of the middle class tax burden until my sixth year.

Other candidates are talking about allocating the burden in a way that creates better economic incentives for Americans and, therefore, will help grow the economy.

Edwards doesn't talk about soaking the rich. He talks about shifting the allocation of the tax burden OFF people who work for a living (earned income earners) and on to less socially and economically productive forms of wealth (unearned income earners).

This is, essentially, Keynesian economics -- let the middle class accumulate more wealth, and they will grow the economy with that wealth, in addition to being able to have more opportunities and options for themselves, which creates more happiness.

Dean won't give the middle class that profit margin which comes from lowering the tax burden (which has shifted dramatically to the middle class over the past 30 years -- and going back to the 2000 rates and brackets is going to do almost nothing to change the fact that the middle class carry all the weight). Instead, he says he will give them a couple social programs.

It's a false dichotomy that Dean is offering America. You can have good social programs AND a sensible allocation of the tax burden. In fact, with a sensible allocation, you'll have a more productive society which will then have even more money with which to do good things.