General Progressive and Conservative Frames...What do you think?

"Honest tax relief" still invokes the idea that people need to be relieved of paying taxes

that they are unfare burdens. How about "fair (or equitable) tax assessment", which implies due consideration since to assess means to state the true value of a thing?

"Counterfeit taxation" (without "relief" - maybe use "reduction") has some possibillities; counterfeit means the supposed value doesn't actually exist, has nothing backing it up, and counterfeit money can lead to inflation and a ruined economy.

Taxes can be put in the "pay your way" or "shoulder your fair share" sort of frame, with the message that the rich who pay lettle taxes are freeloading of the national infrastructures which they use to generate their money (the "corporate welfare" or "welfare for the rich" phrases).

I like the idea of brainstorming -- coming up with as many ideas as possble without judging them right off, or self-censoring.

I think a lot of these are great.
But I think the Fair and Balanced Values makes it sounds like we are stealing from them, and makes them think of Fox. But a lot of the other stuff is good.

My overarching idea of Progessive Values is Sustainability.
to have a sustainable country we must...

Have a sustainable economy (ie. alternatives/green/equality)
sustainable education (good schools, access to schools and college)
            Strong Science
Sustainable environment (be green)
Sustainable civilization (security not just rhetoric)
Sustained health care (universal healthcare)
Sustainable rule of law (end Guantanamo etc)

This then implies that Conservatives Policies are not sustainable (which they are not).

I DO like that word.
First, it links well with security, and stability, and steadiness. It also looks to the long term (instead of quick bucks, quick fixes, maturity (instead the "childishness" of not looking ahead), and depth to our national resources and thinking (instead of being shallow). Don't forget sustained democracy, for two hundred forty years a thing worth "conserving".

I like the term "sustainable" if taken to mean "keepin' on keepin' on, getting better all the time," but unfortunately it has become at least partially co-opted by opposing interests. For instance, in the real estate and construction industires, "sustainable development" means sustaining or accelerating the current rate of expanding urban sprawl. I don't want to abandon the term, just defend the purity of its meaning

I suppose I should have been a bit more clear with "Honest Tax Relief", I know when the conservative tax breaks first went through, federal dollars to the states were reduced, which forced states to raise taxes, here in Massachusetts with a conservative Governor we had the DMV fees doubled. Because local aid was cut from the state, our local fees went up considerably with new local fees added for just about everything. I see the increase of "user fees" as a regressive/ conservative tax, they do this so they can reduce the income tax. So when I think of the use of "Honest Tax Relief" I think of a progressive income tax with fair user fees instead of excessive user fees, which places a burden on lower socioeconomic class people. Does this clarification change your mind at all or do you still feel it doesn't work properly?

I don't see a problem with the concept, but the word "relief" is problematic because it evokes the "unfair burden" mind set. Tax shuffle, pea game, or some similar phrase might be used for what you are describing (the shift of costs from one sector to another)

that doesn't imply that taxes are inherently unfair, but rather that the current practice of who pays how much is unfair.

Thing is, all words tend to be "magic words", like saying "there's no place like home" brings you to Kansas -- or clicking a link in a message brings you to a website. Actually, "clicking" on a word brings you to other links in a linguistic thought chain -- the associations one has with a word, which can then link to other associations, eventually forming a metaphor or frame through which one interprets what has been heard and forms meaning. "Relief" is virtually always associated with stopping something bad -- such as a headache ("Fast Relief" has been heard thousands of times in commercials for headache pills, or anti-acids). One can override such associations consciously, but it takes time and energy to be mindful of one's reactions and people often don't do that.

"Tax breaks", even, will often implies something good -- to "get a break" on something means to save money. Perhaps this can be turned around, however with some phrasing like "they gave out so many tax breaks that now our revenue system is broken". Trying a phrase like "tax relief is just another way for the rich to relive the middle class people of their money" is less likely to work because the "tax relief" meme from the right wing has already been "burnt in" to such a great degree that it's likely to invoke their established frame and word association instead of the new one. Also, the emotional reaction can be evoked even contrary to the logical conclusion, and maybe not consciously -- one "just gets a negative reaction" to what is heard. For a few years I "instinctively" did not like people named David I met -- until I took notice and figured out why: the main "David" I knew was a bully in school. Then I had to find examples of people I liked who named David to provide alternative reactions and associations. Simple conditioned response. Now I need to find people I like who are named George or Bush. ;)

I believe I now understand what you are saying. Framing any type of tax, weather income or fee as a negative thing will not help in the long run. I love your metaphor or words to images/frames just like website links to a webpage, good job and thank you. I like your idea of "tax relief is just another way for the rich to relieve the middle class people of their money". What do you think about something along the lines of framing the rich as "England" and "tax relief" as the stamp tax, forced onto the middle class to make "England" wealthier. I have heard much about the "Commonwealth" as a place for "common wealth" of the people. "Tax Relief" is drying out our coffers of community (or Common) wealth and establishment. I suppose "establishment" would refer to infrastructure (Roads, schools, police, fire).

I'm not sure about England and the stamp tax

it might presume too much knowledge of history on the part of many people. I had to think for a moment to remember what that was about. Maybe the tea tax would have a bit more resonance?

And also, as you mention below, it's hard to know what frames you have which other people do to, although the major frames, like "family" will likely be shared. But then, Lakoff talks about two types of families, strict and nurturing, which yield metaphors of two types of nations. YOUR stamp tax might different from others -- your target audience. That's really the point of having "focus" groups: run various words and frames up the flagpole at a gathering and see which constituency salutes which ones -- don't you love Madison Avenue metaphors? :) . Often they ask for resonses from the audience, but sometimes they hook people to instruments to record eye pupil response or other biometrics. I haven't heard of market research people doing it yet but some psychology researchers are hooking up people to MRI machines to see brain response to various stimuli -- it get's a little scary. Without some sort of research, however, we are going to have to guess to some degree. That's includes which our many sorts of frames and metaphors might kick in: one person may hear a thing in terms of family, another in terms of a playground, and another in a frame of the nation and society as a ship traveling the seas.

I'm thinking, just real quick, of a story about a family where the kids get more allowance as they get older but every kid has to buy his own school supplies out of it. It's easy to see the unfairness of that since the bigger kids' supplies aren't that much more expensive, and most everyone can identify with that story. That metaphor doesn't quite work out logistically, maybe, but it's more universal and "hits home" more than England and their taxes on the colonists. There might also be a story about how a kids has a paper route and must turn over money to the parents -- who then spend it on themselves. The family and childhood frames are more deeply embedded, and often the assumptions and frames one grows up with are never consciously examined.

At the same time, one can certainly argue that taxes are like the household chores that kids should do -- and the bigger kids should be doing the more difficult chores: the 12-year-old mows the lawn but the 6-year-old takes the trash out. And that's not because there is anything wrong with being a 6-year-old: he just doesn't have the same resources and abilities of the older child (and he also eats less and asks for less expensive toys).

Not too long ago progressives were using the term "Reverse Robin Hood" to attempt to reframe Tax Relief. I do not feel this was effective. My reasoning is because whenever I think of "Reverse Robin Hood" I only think of Robin Hood. I imagine him walking backwards with wealth and just assume that its the traditional story of rich money to the poor money. Wouldn't the "Reverse" work similar to "not" when Nixon said "I'm not a crook" people associated Nixon and crook. In this I associate Robin Hood with taxes, then I think about how Robin Hood brings wealth from the rich to the poor. Maybe the frames in my mind (on this frame) are different than others?

A powerful way to shift concepts when it comes to taxes is to replace "Tax Relief" with "Tax Investment". After all, aren't taxes really about the pooling of wealth collectively to provide things that no individual can afford? We use taxes for many things, including:

*Highways
*Libraries
*Funding scientific research
*Banking system and stock exchange
*Public education
*Communications networks
*Energy grids
*Railroads
*Natural wonders (parks, forests, coastal zones, etc.)
*Protection (military, national guard, diplomatic conflict resolution)
*Representation (in global community through U.N., local, state, and federal)
*Courts

Basically all of the infrastructure of complex societies comes from the pooling of resources among community members for the public good. Taxation is essential and it is the morally good thing to do (because we pay our dues to benefit from membership in modern society).

This reframing has been very powerful for me.

How about "community investment" being linked with taxes?

We know that conservatives are using the phrase "progressively worse" to reframe "Progressive" as a bad word, as they did with "Liberal". Their wording does work, due to the fact that progressive simply means increasingly. I know this does not work as a normal, regular context but "conservatively worse". I know by definition this would mean less worse, an oxymoron. If we used it in a different way such as "Their finances are out of control, they are becoming conservatively worse." In this sentence, the word "conservative" would refer to poor fiscal policies current with the federal government. For this frame to work it would need to be spoken as a negative statement, maybe with a slight sign of disgust.

A Second way to use the word could be "Stop thinking so conservatively!" This could be used when someone is thinking of "the same old" or "closed-minded" thoughts.

Another example could be if someone said "Being gay is wrong" or something to that effect you could reply "Stop thinking so conservatively, its gross".

If we use the word "conservative" as a bad word with a negative, gross or disgusted emotion behind it, the word will become a negative word.

I would love to hear opinions on this; I think reframing the word "conservative" is important.

We are progressively better

just refute the accusation and name calling early on.

I've used the sort version of conservative "con" at times (against and negative, fraud, convict) -- as opposed to "pro". "That thinking is just so con! Get with the times. Look for a brighter future."

I understand what you are saying and I will use that, the "con" vs. "pro" I like it. I'll give you an example that was used the other day in a non-political fashion. I was having dinner with some people who are hard-line conservatives and one was talking about the numbering of runners in a race. His statement was "The numbers get progressively lower." Another time about a year ago a friend of mine (a progressive) said his TV had been getting progressively worse. He was referring to lines going across his screen. I corrected him about it and he hasn't used the word progressive in that fashion since. Maybe we should start using the word progressive (as in increasingly) as increased in a positive term, instead of increasingly in a negative was, the way conservatives use it?