The resonating point John Edwards wanted to make in last night's debate certainly was that Dick Cheney wanted to reward "wealth, not work"  It is a fundamental difference in approach between liberals and conservatives summed up in one neat sound byte. 

Indeed, I've often heard this debate point turned on it's head by the likes of Rush Limbaugh who insists that liberals want to punish success.  Yes the better you do, the more a progressive tax system will tax you, based on the theory that your fair share of the burden of running a government is proportionally larger because not only have you taken better advantages of the nation's opportunities, but you are better able to carry that disproportional weight.

Any time you hear George Bush talk about "simplifying" the tax code and making it more fair, remember that they want to make it more fair for those who pay that higher percentage of taxes, the wealthy.

Yes there is some merit to the idea that under some circumstances lowered taxes does increase revenue to the government because at a certain point the marginal rate of return decrease as you raise taxes.  But this "law of diminishing returns" only works when you reach a certain threshold below which just plain common sense takes over and the tax system behaves logically, lower rates resulting in lower revenue.  The tipping point is finding that mythical level (which changes daily) where for every percentage point of tax increase or decrease, the revenue received for that change also reacts proportionally in consort with the rate of return.  This maximizes the overall average effect of the tax rate system.  To date I have never seen tax rates approach this level, but jump all around it like the tax system does when treated like a political football.

Rewarding "wealth not work" themes by democrats are also attacked by conservatives because by taxing the rich more, it makes it harder for those who actually create jobs to create more.  Again this is a sliding scale and tries to quantify individual hiring decisions on a macro scale.  At one point, where your business is producing at capacity or at least adequately meeting demands, the additional income provided by a tax cut will not translate into more jobs but merely a windfall lining the pockets of ownership. 

In other words, conservatives welded to their religion of tax cuts, deny once again the law of diminishing returns, that there is a tipping point where tax policy does not provide the result intended.  In each case where the marginal return on the policy is reached or exceeded, it is not the wealthy or successful who are punished, but the burden is shifted to the middle class who find that maintaining that status is harder and harder, yet when taxes are increased, especially on the wealthiest citizens, they, unlike regular working people, can pass that additional tax burden along to their customers, once again the middle class.

We've had four years of tax cuts sold for diametrically opposed reasons.  Because there is a surplus, because there is recession, because it will create more jobs, because we are still losing jobs despite last year's or the year before's tax cuts, and of course deficits don't matter.  The jobs are still not there although corporate America has done fantastic under Bush's "corporatism." 

The bottom line is that the burden of keeping this nation going will always be the middle class whether directly or  by the wealthy passing their burden on.  Anything designed to help the middle class helps this nation as a whole and has the added benefit of being populists. Yet I have never seen a thoughtful cost benefit of tax policy in the middle of a campaign.  It, like so many other things is used as a was to divide Americans into the haves and have-nots. 

What a shame.  But I understand the appeal.  Other than references to John Edwards, the googlable references to "wealth not work" involve get rich quick schemes which have the same appeal as GOP tax strategies.

UPDATE: Train wreck of typos fixed. (Hope I got 'em all)

ADDENDUM: I guess I'm not the only one thinking along these lines, and they not only say it much more elequently than I, they have the credentials to back up their conclusion that Bush's economic policies are an imminent disaster.

Sensible and farsighted economic management requires true discipline, compassion, and courage – not just slogans.

A large group of business school professors, an open letter to the President joined by

• Scientists and Engineers for Change
• Clergy
• The Union of Concerned Scientists
• Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
• Generals and Admirals in the United States Military, and
• 180 Ambassadors

VIA: Medley