SO WHAT? The DEMOCRAT party fought Civil Right legislation, even when the Republicans gained control for a short period and passed CR legislation as soon as the Democrats regained power they repealed it. Spare me your folly of trying to claim "oh those weren't REALLY Democrats they were Southerners" They were Democrats fully embraced by the Democrat party in high positions in the Democrat party, it is where the segregationist found their home. Even after they tried to split and formed the Dixiecrats when they lost they went right back into the arms of the Democrat party. They capitalized on a generational shift and a move of northerners to the South, the segregationist in the Democrat party did not go running to the Republican party which had supported Civil Rights and Voting Rights since the Civil War and had finally defeated them. The shift had nothing to do with Civil Rights. The economy and size of government primarily and ever expanding government power along with foreign policy. Certainly NOT because the Republican party is fighting to re-institute segregation and repeal the VRA or CRA.
1. Greater wealth in the South not seen since reconstruction, perception of GOP as the lower taxing party. 2. Roe v Wade. Southerners have a history of religious fundamentalism and many take abortion seriously. 3. Feminism, Southerners are not as sympathetic to the victimology politics of feminism. 4. Youth Movement, Southerners weren't receptive to the hippie/protest/radical movement. 5. Anti War. Southerners as the cradle of the nation's military are not as friendly to antimiltary sentiments in the left. 6. Growing central government power and the megabureaucracy. Southerners have always been more localist in politics. These and a host of other complex reasons for the slow fragmented shift of the South more towards the GOP. Bluesguy is correct, it has taken place over a long time. It is only the left that insists on the simplified "Civil Rights" narrative to explain shifting Southern voting patterns. The "Southern Strategy" is propaganda hogwash to deflect from and blameshift the real racist history of the Democratic Party in the US. Only the left is preoccupied with "shoehorning" in this way, insists on polarizing oversimplifications of voting patterns towards propaganda purpose. It is a sacred cow among the leftist religion, and no matter how thoroughly this or that simplified generalization is disproven, the left will be spouting the same nonsense to kingdom come.
Perhaps we should start quoting Woodrow Wilson on race as indicative of anything useful in analyzing the Democrat Party in the political now. No? OK then.
Clearly, the democratic party has changed their stance on race issues since the days of Wilson. It would appear that the GOP has turned its back on Theodore Roosevelt as well. - - - Updated - - - the southern strategy is not propaganda invented by the democrats. It was invented by Team Nixon.
I still have no idea what bearing a 100 year old quotation from anyone has on current tax policy, or why we should consider such as anything other than history. Like most leftisms, the Roosevelt quote was just plopped down as if it led to some conclusion from its terms alone. It doesn't. And of course, you don't substantiate the above at all. Interesting "southern strategy," "hey if you desegregate the schools and institute affirmative action, maybe all the racists will start voting for you!" The "Southern Strategy" is founded on a single, vague Pat Buchanan mined quote, a single posthumously published interview with Lee Atwater by an incredibly partisan, biased source, and some "dog whistle" "coded language conspiracy bullcrap. If there were some Southern Strategy as pertains to seducing racists into voting Republican, it would have more evidence grounding it... like the massive, well documented evidence for the factors I listed and you didn't address at all. I'll stick with reality as opposed to leftist fabrication, thanks. BTW, if you are really an expat enjoying that very favorable tax treatment, yet here taking issue with those complaining about paying high domestic tax rates, you have about a ton of gall and are a real piece of work.
Conflating two arguments. The 50%+ is ALL taxes federal, state and local combined and the question how much should government in TOTAL take from one person. - - - Updated - - - Sure, post what percentage of income earned versus percentage of income taxes paid...........go right ahead it's done quite often here.
Then why your statement You>> 72% of the taxes, then the wealthy are underpaying relative to their wealth. Me>> We're in the top 20% that pays 80% of income taxes, what is not fair about that? What is that HUGELY disproportionate number fair? ROFL the 80/20 is not extremely progressive? The bottom half paying virtually nothing is not extremely progressive? Depends on the sales tax system, for instance the Fair Tax retains progressiveness with the prebate.
Because our federal tax structure has nothing to do with state and local tax structures. And no that statement is not incorrect and in many states, most states the lowest earners still do not pay a heavy burden in taxes as they still get standard deductions, homestead exemptions, and other credits. But we are talking FEDERAL taxes here and the fair share of THOSE taxes.
It is a tax on the ESTATE not living taxpayers and is trivial in the larger picture. The statements about how much income tax is paid by people with a lot of wealth concerns income tax on living taxpayers. We do not tax that wealth and it would be a nightmare to attempt to do so. What is balanced about the top 1% paying 40% of income taxes and the bottom 50% paying virtually nothing? What burden on the lower income groups who MAKE MONEY off the tax system? I see them quite well especially when I used to get them and now I don't. A flat tax would accomplish the same. Compared to business tax calculations and loss carryovers and depreciation.......... But if you argument is that the gross disproportionality in our tax system is because the lower incomes have to file for the EITC I think it will be laughed at.
what favorable tax treatment? All my income is taxed in the US. I vote in every election. I have every right to engage in the debate as to how my tax dollars are spent... and I have every right to push my elected representatives to raise the marginal tax rates on wealthy folks like myself. And, btw, the basic philosophy behind Teddy's quote does not change over time. The wealthy get so many intrinsically valuable benefits from their wealth, it does need to be treated differently than the income of non-wealthy people. 100 years has not changed that paradigm. - - - Updated - - - they just pay lots of other, more regressive taxes. at the level of the taxing authority, a property tax dollar, a use tax dollar, a sales tax dollar, and an income tax dollar all spend exactly the same.
So unlike all the expats I know, you don't take the foreign tax credit or income exclusion? You are welcome to your opinion, and a single vague quote from Roosevelt doesn't bolster it. What are these "intrisically valuable benefits from their wealth" that found "different treatment?" Sounds like vague "fair share" campaign sloganeering to me, not a specific rationale for a specific policy. How would you assess someone offering a vague stumping appeal of JFK to lower taxes on those who create innovation and take risk because they benefit us all while undertaking that risk? Would you just accept such wholesale as "Ah I see, JFK said that once, it must be the best grounds for current policy?" Of course you wouldn't.
First.... I pay such minuscule foreign taxes that I do not even bother keeping track of them and I certainly wouldn't take the time to gather up the paperwork each year to send back to my accountant in order to get some infinitesimal US tax benefit from them. And I make no income outside the US - other than global stocks which I have had since before moving away from the US - so the foreign income exclusion doesn't apply to me. The expats you know must be working stiffs... I am fully retired. And as to the intrinsic benefits that wealthy accrue simply from their wealth.... it is sort of like that old story about yachts, if you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it in the first place. If you are truly unaware of the intrinsic benefits that come to wealthy Americans that do not flow to ordinary citizens, I can't explain them to you because you obviously would not understand them.
sometimes, the truth does not need to come all adorned with simplistic data.... sometimes, it's just the truth.
SO WHAT? What matters to people like me is how much of my money I can spend for what I need, and how much is taken away from me. By ALL levels of government. No, we should not be looking only at federal income tax, because (as I tried to get through to you), I pay well over 10% of my income in taxes, despite paying NO federal income tax. If you want an HONEST picture of how progressive our overall national tax structure is, you must consider all taxes - income, sales, property, excise, duties, etc. I'll try to go more slowly, so you can keep up with these complex issues. First, we do NOT have an 80/20 system when all taxes are considered. Not even close. Your technique of ignoring everything inconvenient and then insisting that we're not "looking at" inconveniences is dishonest. Second, what you seem to be calling "fair" would mean outright starving-in-the-streets impoverishment for about half the people. Third, of course the "bottom half" is IN FACT paying more than 10% of their income in taxes of one kind or another, despite your claim that they pay "virtually nothing". And again, your response to this obvious truth is to say, well, let's not look at those taxes.
the interesting thing is, every single wealthy person understands it, and most folks who aren't do as well... you being an exception.
The top 10% own 76% of the assets, so the top 13% paying only 72% of federal income taxes, means they are underpaying. They should be paying closer to 90%.
