 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The rich want to be taxed, so WTF?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
According to a new survey,the rich want to be taxed higher. So who are the Republicans and Tea Party representing?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Corporations?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, yes. But why does anyone else vote for them? This is the puzzler.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The opposition to increasing taxes of any sort has been core dogma of the GOP since Ronald Reagan (who raised taxes anyway, but let's not have truth interfere with mythology). The Grover Norquist pledge and the Tea Party are the latest brand. ANY increase in taxes is ALWAYS bad, because there's no way government can spend that money as efficiently as the individuals who made it. Government only takes money OUT of the economy, so all taxes are always bad and always inhibit economic growth.
And we all know how that worked out: since Reagan, Republican presidents have consistently had lousier economic and fiscal records than Democrats. Supply-side, or trickle-down, or the rising tide, or whatever, doesn't actually do what it says it should. In the real world, it has been repeatedly shown to do no such thing; in fact, it makes more wealth trickle, NAY, flood to those who already wealthy, and the GOP is covering this up.
Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest
Even when the voters explicitly and overwhelmingly* vote for a President who campaigned on raising taxes and maintaining the social safety net, the GOP knows better and must hold true to their principles for the sake of the nation. Since GOP voters are known for sometimes voting against their own interests, it's reasonable to infer that Republican Senators and Congresscritters don't think the voters know what's good for them.
*Yes, it was a significant victory, both in the popular vote and the Electoral College, when all the ballots were FINALLY counted (I'm looking at you, Rick Scott).
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
According to a new survey,the rich want to be taxed higher. So who are the Republicans and Tea Party representing?
The ultra-rich don't care, because higher taxes don't affect them, and it makes them "feel" compassionate (and they have better resources for exploiting the loopholes).
The GOP represents the rest of us for whom higher taxes do affect negatively.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
According to a new survey,the rich want to be taxed higher. So who are the Republicans and Tea Party representing?
Does raise the question - who gets classed as rich?
I don't really think that the top 1% counts as all of the 'rich' as so classed by society, certainly I class anyone who earns over £500,000 pa as rich so it's rather relative.
As posted above (but in my case I would put traditionally the Conservative Party in the UK:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
The ultra-rich don't care, because higher taxes don't affect them, and it makes them "feel" compassionate (and they have better resources for exploiting the loopholes).
The GOP represents the rest of us for whom higher taxes do affect negatively.
Thankfully in the UK we have a situation where the tax burden on the poorest is falling and the tax take is rising on the very richest who can afford it - although of course I will always advocate for lower taxes all around...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And lower health care and lower education and lower social care all around ?
[ 29. December 2012, 12:38: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And lower health care and lower education and lower social care all around ?
Piffle: a more economical use of resources in the public sector would certainly accomodate any lower taxes - there has to be an optimum level at which people are taxed and the government provides public goods at a required level. It's a complete non-starter of an argument that lower taxes mean lower levels of education, health and social care - there are many examples of low tax economies out there who provide excellent healthcare, social services and education... but then I guess the argument that they are 'tax havens' would crop up and to me that is just lazy economics and politics and is a symptom of jealousy and envy.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And lower health care and lower education and lower social care all around ?
Piffle: a more economical use of resources in the public sector would certainly accomodate any lower taxes - there has to be an optimum level at which people are taxed and the government provides public goods at a required level. It's a complete non-starter of an argument that lower taxes mean lower levels of education, health and social care - there are many examples of low tax economies out there who provide excellent healthcare, social services and education... but then I guess the argument that they are 'tax havens' would crop up and to me that is just lazy economics and politics and is a symptom of jealousy and envy.
I'd like to see an example of a country of more than, say, 5 million people that manages this. Every time governments have set out to cut taxes, the results for healthcare, education and social services have been dire. The "efficiency savings" argument is trotted out by the right every time and it's always junk. Particularly when their attempts at efficiency savings involve outsourcing vital services like hospital cleaning - the cleaning is worse, the cleaners get paid less, and the costs increase over time as more people are treated for MRSA et al.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And lower health care and lower education and lower social care all around ?
We could halve our current spending on the armed forces and probably save every taxpayer about a hundred quid a year.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Changes in tax policy affect the poor more than a rich. If you are making over $250,000 a year, you won't be substantively affected if your taxes increase slightly. Now of course, you might bitch about it, but you won't go hungry or even not make expensive purchases. People forget that people generally don't blow their budget each year. Even if America raises taxes to Clinton-age levels, most of the rich will have enough saved up from the past that they will still be able to buy the things they want.
If you are poor however, every penny or dime counts. If you are making minimum wage, then any slight tax increase means you have less money to pay for food, clothing or other necessities.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
