Who believes in this sentiment regarding the role of the government in...

[AP]

...American society:

"The government plays an important role (and probably the most important role) in making sure that there's a level playing and that there's an equality of opportunity in American society, and that the tax code is one of the one of several important tools to achieve this end."

Agree or disagree?

[AP]

1. Who isn't agreeing with this sentiment? Why not?

And who's your candidate?

[jafap]

2. I was the first to disagree

First of all, I could give a crap about equality of opportunity. That whole notion is based on the idea that we all are racing for the same end - to be a rich bastard. Read what Edward Bellamy said about this. To paraphrase he said that "men are eating men on the battlefield of life, and some people only want to make sure it is a fair fight, and let the battle continue."
In another analogy, the economist Henry Carter Adams talked about "raising the plain of competition". To use a sports analogy, certain things like grabbing the facemask, spearing the quarterback, and headslaps are not legal in football. Those rules make the game a little bit less barbaric. In society we create rules such as not allowing chattel slavery, child labor or 6 day weeks. This makes life a little bit less barbaric. So I would see the government as insuring justice and making life more decent than I would see them as giving everyone an equal chance at a brutal game.
Finally, when you talk about the tax code being a tool, you are missing a more important tool - the spending side. Where the money goes is more important than where it comes from. With progressive taxation, I am just being practical in finding the best way to raise the most money. After Clinton's tax increase in 1993, the rich kept right on getting richer, but so also did the 3,000,000 people who used to have jobs.

[burr]

4. equal opportunity means having justice and the same starting point....

it has nothing to do with racing toward the same end. It has to do with giving anyone the opportunity to get there if they chose to. This opportunity...whether it is justice, defense, healthcare, infrastructure, education, jobs, healthcare, or a stable economy is what provides us with the means of reaching our individual ends.

Obviously these things must be paid for, and by implimenting a progressive tax system which still allows the wealthy to accumulate excessive sums of wealth without taxing the poor and middleclass wages at burdensome rates. This raises the most amount of money for these programs, while setting their objective for equal opportunity without setting back this objective in the process!

Hopefully this is an ideal worth having...but it will always be a long way off.

[jafap]

7. opportunity is about goals, not starting points

Alot of the talk is about barriers to "advancement". It certainly is about goals. It is more about giving everyone a chance to fully participate in the capitalist system. That goal is not very important to those of us, like Bellamy and I, who want to replace the capitalist system with something less wasteful, less cruel, and which embraces human values instead of selling or destroying them for $$$$.

I already conceded that progressive taxes were the best way to raise the most money. What I disagreed about was the importance of using the tax code to acheive "equal opportunity". I am using the tax code primarily (at least philosophically) to raise money. I am using that money (again, in theory) to educate, build infrastructure, enforce laws and regulations, and keep people from starving, becoming homeless, or being without basic medical care. I disagree with the polled statement in order to give proper credit to the spending side.

[JVS]

3. Do you mean "Should" or "Actually does"?

because that greatly alters what the question means.

[not systems]

5. I agree.

Providing a level playing field for our society
is one of the main rolls of government.

Tax code is one way, regulation of monopolies,
and public education are two others.

I also think a "level playing field" should
not be leveled so I believe that regulation
for enviromental protection is very important.

Trade must be regulated to support domestic
enviromental, labor and human rights standards.

[Dover]

6. I'm for more localized government when possible, but feel the

fed gov. has an important role to play in keeping that playing field as level as possible and regulating industry as well as maintaining the laws under our Constitution. As we develop global governance more, things will have to shift here at home, but I don't want to allow that global governing body to be the mega-corporations. Until we work that one out our fed government is critical to keeping things in check.

I do think that there is more diversification occurring in many industries and business sectors that should or could potentially take some of that load off the fed due to their more localized nature. For instance, if alternative energies really took hold, then centralized energy sources wouldn't be as prevalent. As diversification happens it seems to make local governance more important so that they can respond to the unique problems and create solutions specific to that region.

I'm all for refiguring the whole substructure (taxes/gov. etc) so that it grows and changes with things. Static systems never work, and if they don't bend they break. Our oil industry is a good example. So I see an expansion into globalization and a retreat to more localized governance to happen simultaneously.

[AP]

8. Good point about international law.

In the same way that the federal government regulates interstate trade, which discourages self-help and levels the playing field with regard to that kind of trade, it's important to have the rule of law apply to international relations. It's just a truism, I guess, that if you're engaging is some kind for exchange or relationship, whither it's wholy withing a legal jurisidiction, across borders within a federal system or a union, or among nations tht aren't part of some other union, it's important to have that activity subject to some court of law which applies fair rules, like the courts within just about every nation in the world.

And just as we had a wild west ungonverned by laws withing the US, we're having this sort of wild west among nations (in Iraq). And in the civil realm -- trade -- we've confered authority to the financial interests, just as the UK had a trade organization running the equivalent of the FDA, which led to the BSE crisis.

It just points to the imprortance of things like an ICC, and some sort of civil equivalent which isn't the WTO -- something like the European Courts of Justice.

[Dover]

9. Good points. I agree. Right now the fed needs to be the umpire

in this crazy game. The problem is that the umpires are being paid under the table and the game is becoming a free-for-all. Or perhaps we have a few powerful groups trying to play different games. Either way, our current government will need to be reformed (or those that inhabit it) before it can be effective and a trustworthy umpire.
The "Wild West" as you so aptly put it, is a dangerous place and the corrupt sheriffs are creating even greater instability during this critical stage. Of course, I suppose there are some groups that would prefer that we lose faith in government and the current system to further justify their own self-serving brand of justice and law.

The GOP is running around telling government and schools that they need to be run like a BUSINESS, and that the business culture is more efficient. Maybe....maybe not. But the point they seem to leave out is that they are NOT democratic or accountable to The People. They have no mechanism or desire for input from the people (or as they affectionately refer to us..."the consumer"). And voting for the American Idol does NOT solve that problem or make for a healthy democracy when the medium is controlled. That's why most 'reality' shows are anything BUT reality.

[JackRiddler]

10. The game itself is not worth playing...

as others here point out.

And progressive taxation is a scam whereby the rich get off, the middle class gets milked and then brainwashed into believing the money went to the poor (when in reality it goes to subsidize the corporations). That is the story the actual numbers tell, even under Democrats.

Call me when you're ready to tax wealth!

I'd abolish income tax for everyone making less than $100,000 - why should people be punished for working? Up to that sum, it's credible to say your income is a function of your hard work. (Beyond that, there's obviously more added value than just the work.)

Let the people choose how to spend their own damn money, and put the burden on the price side (with selective consumption, production and energy taxes). Make things and activities that have high externalized or environmental costs more expensive.