Originally Posted by Guest

Regardless of what you may think, I'm not liberal or arrogant. I simply understand that people who have more money are better able to pay higher taxes than those who make less money. Pretty simple stuff, really. I'm sorry but your position is absolutely classic conservative arrogance. First you label someone earning "x" amount as "lazy" and then pass laws to confiscate what little he has since he's not a "job creator"! Unsaid, of course, is that if the poor are "allowed" to keep their earnings, they'll spend them on cigarettes and booze.

Reducing the size of government, it is true, would probably reduce the tax burden. But that wasn't the point of the post I originally quoted. That post wanted to reallocate the "confiscation" from the "relatively wealthy" to the "relatively poor" through the use of regressive tax policies.

See the problem is that conservatives vote in favor of heavy tax burdens on the poor because they know they will likely NEVER be subjected to them. It's easy to pass a tax on someone else knowing you'll never be subject to it.

Your arguments make just as much sense against you as they did in support of you. (That's not the sign of a good argument)