George Will can't express himself very well on taxation, it seems...

[MrMickeysMom]

This morning's Pittsburgh Post Gazette predictably carried Will's Wash-Po column, though, for the life of me, I can't figure out WHY. He's such a bad writer. I've historically stopped mid column, mostly due to the nonsense within each missive, but lately, I've actually tried to understand the logic behind it, or why it couldn't be said with clearer intent. I gave this morning's read the good ole college try again...

So, in this 103rd year of the income tax, it is timely to note that there still is no intellectually sturdy case for progressive taxation.

Arguments for it are invariably arguments for increased equality of social outcomes. Because individuals have different vocational desires and different aptitudes for adding value to the economy, inequality is inevitable. Because individuals have different social sensibilities, opinions will differ about what degrees of inequality are intolerably unlovely (more about this aesthetic metric in a moment). But inequality, even when unlovely to some, is unjust only when it arises from unjust social arrangements. So, the degree to which inequality is morally troubling depends on the degree to which the process that allocates wealth does so according to political influence and rent-seeking rather than merit and self-reliance.

For more of this unreadable intent about progressive taxation...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nonexistent-case-for-progressive-taxation/2015/12/04/4ef17830-99e6-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html

If someone is given national exposure to a writing, is it too hard to hard to expect a clear argument? I think he should go back to sports analogies, because the subjects in which he does not excel are not presented clearly either... certainly not progressive taxation, and for that matter, anything political. Reading him is like a getting through a sand and mud in your flip-flops.

[meaculpa2011]

1. You may not agree with him...

but he is expressing himself with perfect clarity.

[think]

4. He lacks a factual basis and prefers an opinionated based repsonse about imposing one's Will

while ignoring the will already being imposed on the majority by those that don't want their taxes raised. Those that have gotten massive tax cuts yet still control the real issues our government legislates.

And many of those are the corporations that benefit financially from war & from having our military stretched across the globe to protect THEIR financial interests and assets overseas while they exploit the people & lands of the countries they occupy.

[meaculpa2011]

5. With all due respect...

that was not the premise of the OP.

[think]

8. The premise that progressive taxation is imposing the majority's will on the wealthy minority

may not be the central premise but it is most certainly & bluntly stated with in the article:

Proportionate taxation always is what progressive taxation never is: simple. What justifies progressive taxation, and characterizes progressivism, is confidence that at any moment in society’s endless evolution, what is equitable can be known and society can be fine-tuned to achieve it. Which is how we got our baroque tax code.

As Blum and Kalven noted, “It is the very nature of majority rule that the majority can vote distinctive burdens for the minority.” It is, however, the nature of reality that burdens imposed on the wealthy minority can injure the majority by impairing economic incentives, thereby suppressing growth. Progressive taxation reduces the rewards of investments, and the real rate of return on savings, thereby encouraging consumption over saving and hence over capital formation.

Take what you want from the article. That's the premise that stood out for me.

[Fuddnik]

2. When you tie your bow-tie too tight, it cuts off blood flow to the brain.

He could be a Food Network star if word salad were edible.

[MrMickeysMom]

12. Yes...

Let's get him a spot right after Paula Dean, shall we?

[think]

3. The sad part this is syndicated garbage and it appeared in a lot of newspapers across America.

It's not meant to inform as it lacks any factual basis for the claims but to reinforce stereotypical thinking about taxation.

There is no discussion of the benefits of the taxation being considered, no discussion of the massive cuts that were made to the top income brackets, no discussion of corporations paying little or no taxes, and no discussion of the debts incurred by those that cut taxes and increased spending.

[MrMickeysMom]

11. BINGO!

Much appreciated, think...

I had to work, and therefore, a stretch of time to check back on this OP...

It's not meant to inform. I think the operating theme here is "reinforce stereotypical thinking about taxation."

Plus, I think he takes prose and does word salad with it. It's supposed to offer some kind of credibility to it. But, how can you credible when you don't drill down to the issues of who pays and who doesn't pay taxes, nor discussion of the "why".

Appreciate your thoughts.

[HughBeaumont]

6. Of course, MY idiotic RW rag (the Plain Dealer) posted this shit.

It was very poorly written. So glib and Ayn Rand-ish. Typing for the sake of filling words, which is exactly what I expect from George Will. If his intent was to support a Libertarian argument, it failed miserably. The wealthy DO make and get to keep too goddamned much of their wealth and it's not even remotely subjective at this point, especially considering inflation adjusted incomes for the 90% have flat-lined since 1979.

[MrMickeysMom]

14. You've hit on something...

Of course, I consume articles, and like some famous people having admitted they aren't professionals in writing, I none the less know what I like to read.

For many reasons, it ain't him. The fact that the Post Gazette carries him, Krauthammer and many other ideologues of "newspeak" makes me want to drop my subscription. They can go with so many others.

[Octafish]

7. Why George ''The Cubcurse'' Will has a job.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

So, the rich hire turds like The Cubcurse to avoid discussion of...

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[MrMickeysMom]

17. That is it, Octafish...

Why? Because, they can!

I admit not understanding "cubcurse", but it MUST have something to do with his love of baseball and Chicago. Duh, eh?

[yellowcanine]

9. George Will also makes the most ridiculous comparisons on campaign spending.

For example, braying about how much more money Americans spend on jelly beans vs amount spent on campaigns....Okay, I don't think he ever made that direct comparison but you get the idea....

[yellowcanine]

10. It must chafe his butt that Lincoln signed the first progressive income tax in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862

Which of course contradicts his "103rd year of the income tax" bs. An intellectually honest writer would have at least noted the progressive income tax during the Civil War.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. Gret point, yellowcanine...

I'm tired of the dishonesty. If you can't be honest, though, at least be a good writer!

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Obfuscation requires many words.

Progressive taxation? Because Adam Smith, that's why.

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/490751-josh-dowlut/218593-the-classically-liberal-argument-for-higher-taxes-on-the-rich

Gibberish doesn't have very many semantic rules. Logic on the other hand, does.

[MrMickeysMom]

18. Excellent blog you pointed me to, LJ

Thanks for the lesson.

[Skittles]

15. pompous windbag