OK, I'll bite...but only 1 bite at a time; not that laundry list of
We've been asked what is inherently "conservative" about low taxes and what is "liberal" about high taxes.
As far as tax rates are concerned the terms onservative and liberal are just labels and the marinal tax rate is a symptom of a the philosophical principles behind each label. I'm not going to discuss the etymology.
But tax rates are a symptom of the intents of each movement.
As a conservative I believe government as a collective effort to protect each individual. No man wants his home robbed or his lands invaded so we pool our communal resources to give ourselves police officers and soldiers. Of course humans are inexhaustably complex and society tends to take on the image of its creators. Police officers are soon accompanied by judges, jailers...and politicians to decide what constitutes the laws that are guarded by the police, judges and jailers. The soldier is soon joined by sailors, generals and--sigh--defense contractors.
Yet for all this complexity the idea is a minimalist one. These institutions are maintained only because they are the least amount needed to secure the greatest individual liberty. The man that an close up his shop after a fair day's business to return to his home to kiss his wife and children as he puts his feet up before the fire is the happiest man and all the accoutriments of government serve no functions except to ensure that man remains unmolested.
For him to remain unmolested he must give-up a portion of his shop's daily receipts in the form of taxes to maintain the officers and soldiers that keep him and his family and property safe. But the government is not some alien benefactor, it is an extension of that man because as a man of rights he has a voice in that government. He may use his voice to add weight to the debates about how many soldiers should be levied, how much they shall be paid, how they shall be equipped and most importantly of all when they shall fight in his name.
Still, the police and soldiers are there to defend his well-being and as such it defeats his purpose to make them tyrants or consumers of that well-being. As a natural outgrowth he keeps them well-provisioned to defend him but limits their numbers,wages and duties, choosing instead to reserve the greater share of responsibilities to himself.
Hence the low tax rates.
From what I observe of liberalism...
...I shall be charitable and say it is based on the desire to do the most good for the most people and it takes no embarrassment at the idea of using government not to protect but to provide. One poor man seems to impoverish us all so all must be clothed, housed, educated, fed and comforted not through personal efforts but through the contributions of the greater whole to each individual. They end to cite historic abuses--both real and imagined--to accumulate as many repsonsibilities as possible to their chosen appartus. If inequalities in education can be demonstrated in any place at any time than all educational institutions must be taken under wing. Each new inequality reported entails a broader expansion of the effort to regulate and distribute the goods and services of the presumed offending institution.
Hence the higher tax rates.
What are the good and ill of each ideal? That's another discussion.
