This article is a treasure trove of Ye Olde Classic Conservative distortions of the Tax Question. Williamsons starter question is, OF COURSE, NOT straight forward.
How do we raise the revenue needed to meet government spending requirements in a way that is minimally disruptive to the productive economic activity that sustains public and private sectors alike?
Both spending requirements and minimally disruptive are not neutral things. Reps want SRs to be low and geared towards defense, Dems want them high for the poor and lower middle class and low for the rich and upper middle class. There’s no neutral, technocratic solution here. It’s value laden, fraught with subjective opinion
Likewise what constitutes minimally disruptive. To whom? For Reps,minimally disruptive towards the wealthy, for Dems minimally disruptive for the poor. Given how incredibly disruptive Reps are around Voter ID is a good indication.
Everyone outside Republicania thinks that Reps help the wealthy, not the middle class, and the poor are LOL to them.
All the fiscal plans of all the candidates running. Without exception, they are ALL lowering taxes for the rich and increasing them for the poor and middle class.
(Especially poor Rubio, who is so arithmetically challenged that he seems to think that doubling the amount of breadcrumbs a poor person gets is, while giving a wealthy person $80,000, means that is some sort of redistribution DOWNWARDS instead of upwards.)
That dog just won’t hunt.