(06-12-2019 02:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How do you enact any legislation without "wielding power"? How do you build a border wall without "wielding power"? How to you pass a tax bill without "wielding power"? How do you limit women's access to abortions without "wielding power"?

Have a great trip!

If the tax bill is one that reduces the tax burden, then it would not be wielding power. It would be returning power to another group.

If the tax bill is indeed more 'progressive' (neat overlying tautology with that word in the field of taxation, isnt it?), then you would be absolutely correct in using the term 'wielding power'. In fact, the better term would be 'appropriating more power', would it not?

So tell me, who is more prone to a bill that overall reduces tax burdens across the board? Conservatives, or progressives? The 'side' that is less prone to do that undoubtedly comes down fing square on the side of 'wielding' (and obtaining more) power.

Thank you for that nice example.

Unless you are applying a uniform tax cut to all citizens, then you are still wielding power.

Please give me your argument for the border wall and abortion.

No, your 'uniform cut to all citizens' argument doesnt cut it. For various reasons.

Actually *any* reduction in taxes is return of power. You could cut *only* the top rate and that is a net reduction of 'wielded power'. Or, for that matter, cut only the bottom paying 2% (note the term 'paying' here) and that would be a net yielding of power. So a *uniform* cut (progressive wet dream here) is not a necessity for yielding power. Any net cut suffices.

Further, BS on the *all citizens* stuff as well. How the fk do you cut federal taxes to the 47 per cent that pay zero taxes? If your answer is a return, then you are playing in the 'progressive wet dream' game again -- it is just that that answer shows the stark 'play for power' that progressives typically engage in.

My point is that if you are choosing which specific populations deserve a tax cut than you are surely wielding power by making that determination. "You people get a tax cut. That group over there, I'm going to keep your taxes stable. And you people on this end are getting higher taxes."

I'm not saying that I oppose non-uniform tax cuts... I'm simply asserting that this fits within your framework of "wielding power".

There might be a 'wielding' in determining where the cuts go. But the simple act of cutting is a direct and explicit yielding of the overall 'wielding of power'.

I dont think you are quite on board on what a big 'wielding of power' taxes actually are. Or that any discrete cut in and of itself (w/o regard to the process of whom benefits) is an act of a state yielding that discrete portion of power back to someone or some group.