Never Have More Paid Less Taxes for So Few

[beamjockey]

Governor Romney has won the Illinois primary, and as his victory speech is being beamed into my house right now, he is explaining that he has "the vision to get us out of this mess:"

"I see a time
when the government finally understands
that it's better for more people to pay less in taxes
than for a few people to pay a lot more!"
[Crowd cheers.]

Who can argue with that?

It is better for more people to pay less in taxes than for a few people to pay a lot more!

It would be worse for more people to pay more in taxes than for a few people to pay a lot less. Can we all agree on this?

It would also be worse for fewer people to pay more in taxes than for a lot of people to pay a few more taxes.

It would be better for less people to pay more in taxes than for more people to pay a few taxes. I think.

Visionary indeed. As a wise man once said, "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike."

Comments

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

That's actually a really clever way to get people to cheer for a hike in their own taxes. I'm reminded of those thermodynamics exercises that were full of partial-derivatives-with-quantity-held-constant.

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

If you quote someone and leave out context, I suppose anything would sound funny.

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

If you quote someone and leave out context, I suppose anything would sound funny.

Another statement with which I can scarcely disagree.

Place, on the one hand, the fact that I am a volunteer for the slippery Democratic Party of Illinois against, on the other hand, what you know of my integrity, and make a judgment about this specific quote.

I already gave a little bit of context. Mr. Romney was celebrating victory in the primary, and speaking about his own vision for America.

It was the kind of speech where a candidate describes the wonderful America he foresees if we elect him. Mr. Romney contrasted his plans with the leadership of the incumbent President. About this speech, the press has written headlines such as "Romney Says ‘America’s Greatest Days Ahead’ After Illinois Primary Win."

I heard the line in context myself, and it nevertheless jumped out at me.

Here, have 29 more minutes of context:



(C-SPAN's notes suggest that the former Governor begins speaking around 4:36 in this clip.)

Please let me know if the quote goes from sounding odd, with merely the context I gave, to sounding sensible, once you have placed it more deeply in context.

[tandw.livejournal.com]

It's showing up on LJ as "Invalid video URL."

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

Uh-oh. Try http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RomneyPrim instead.

The quote I offered comes from about 16 minutes into this clip.

[avram]

Here, have a transcript of the whole speech. That's a prepared transcript, the speech as written, so it won't have any accidental verbal stumbles in it. Towards the end, you'll find what you're looking for:

I see an America where we know the prospects for our children will be better than our own; where the pursuit of success unites us, not divides us; when a government finally understands that it's better for more to pay less in taxes than for a few to pay more; where the values we pass on to our children are greater than the debts we leave them; where poverty is defeated by opportunity, not enabled a government check.

Math

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

Hard!

[spacecrab.livejournal.com]

"... it's better for more people to pay less in taxes
than for a few people to pay a lot more!"

>Who can argue with that?

I can. We used to tax millionaires at a rate of 90%. Maybe we don't want to do that, now, for millionaires -- but maybe we should consider imposing that rate for billionaires. Where's the ethical and societal justification for permitting a few individuals in the tribe to amass that much wealth (with iconcomittant ownership of physical and intellectual resources)?

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

Are you implying that you understand Mr. Romney's sentence?

[spacecrab.livejournal.com]

It reads to me like your first iteration:
"It is better for more people to pay less in taxes than for a few people to pay a lot more!"

implying that it's a zero-sum game where you solve budget problems by finding more people to tax (at lower rates) rather than increasing the tax rate for existing payers who are in high-income tax brackets.

I'm in favor of increasing the tax rate for existing payers in high-income brackets (say, above 1 million dollars, net), and wanted to point out that a 90% rate on a billion dollars of gross personal income might not be unreasonable. The implication that the government can raise all the money it needs by finding more people to tax (more people living on subsistance incomes without savings accounts and health insurance, for instance) and leave the rich people alone, is what I object to.

[isherempress.livejournal.com]

This is all hand-waving. I am not amused.

BTW, the roads in Michigan are in terrible condition. Who is supposed to pay for road repair?

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

Who is supposed to pay for road repair?

Either more people, or a few people. I'm not clear which.