When I made the allusion to the founders, I was not trying to imply that the founders would disagree or find our current rates confiscatory. I was stating that they based our government on certain concepts of morality.
If you disagree with them, that is fine. I should have left that statement off as it is getting us going in a worthless direction.
I was merely trying to get to the presuppositions of the argument. If we cannot agree on a concept of right and wrong, we are not going to agree on a concept of fairness in tax policy.
To put it another way, if I assume that morality is based in humanistic, pragmatic terms (which I am assuming you do, and lots of people do. I am not criticizing your morality), then I am left believing that no tax rate is unjust as long as it fulfills some utilitarian metric or some other pragmatic accounting system. So I would have to agree with you.
But I do disagree, because I reject humanism…but that is for another day. Have a good weekend everyone. Maybe on Monday I could make the argument from a humanistic perspective. Good fun.
