Sometimes, the inspiration doesn't come until a bit late

[jducoeur]

So this weekend's music was mostly off of Kate's father's playlist, and it happened that Janis Joplin came up a couple of times. That seems to have percolated in the back of my brain, because this came out in the middle of the night:

Lord, won't you buy me the Pre-si-den-cy.
I think I deserve it, since I'm a Romney.
And it will ensure that I remain tax-free.
Oh, lord, won't you buy me the Pre-si-den-cy.

Lord, won't you buy me a house painted white.
I know that it's small, but I'll try to pack light.
To earn it, I've made sure my wings are quite Right.
Oh, lord, won't you buy me a house painted white.

Comments

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

I've seen you and Cariadoc each make such statements recently. It strikes me as disingenuous, especially since the two of you are the ones who taught *me* about diminishing marginal utility of money. The amount of utility that Romney gave up in taxes had significantly less impact on his life than that of the average tax burden. Which, of course, you know. Which, to my mind, makes statements such as the above tantamount to deliberate deceit.

[I begin to think that English could use a word for "statement which is not, strictly speaking, false, but which is intended to cause the listener to believe something that *is* false". The Republican Neo-Cons are masters of this rhetorical technique.]

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

What boots that? That the marginal value of the money is less from the rich's point of view is a practical matter, not a particularly moral one. That is, unless you ascribe to the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", as admittedly many people do, I don't see any intrinsic reason why one person should owe the state 1000+ x per year what another one might, other than the fact that they have it to hand over.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

I find your distinction between matters "practical" and "moral" to also be disingenuous. Are not all systems of taxation fundamentally based in some moral code's definition about what is a 'fair' tax? [Admittedly, in the degenerate case, the code is "might makes right".]

It's perfectly reasonable to have disagreements about the moral bases of tax codes. (or other morality-related issues). It irks me when folks behave as if their particular position is empirically and obviously correct, without acknowledging that it is only 'correct' within a specific (and arguable) moral framework. Especially when I happen to disagree with that moral framework, of course. ["From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is... a reasonable description of my current opinion, at least in terms of economy and taxation.]