Help me understand Democrats thinking in this!

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by hockeychick10197, Aug 17, 2011.

  1. hockeychick10197

    hockeychick10197 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have a question... and would love to get a democrats point of view or a republican that might know the answer...
    The democrats want to raise taxes on the rich to 1)make government bigger, 2)try to get the votes of the non rich, which is the majority of our country, and 3)help pay for the democratic entitlement programs. Ok, we get that. And the republicans refuse to raise taxes for the rich because 1)they know the more taxes coming in, the bigger the government will be, and 2)its the principle of the matter, dont punish people for making alot of money... everyone should get taxed the same percentage! But the liberals I talk to seem to think they are doing it cause they are all rich snobby people who are greedy and dont want to contribute to our country. If this was the case, and all the Republicans only cared about protecting the rich, how would they get ANY votes? The rich is only a small percentage of our population. How do democrats not see that not raising taxes has nothing to do with protecting the greedy rich and not wanting to help the less fortunate?
     
  2. bAd Hominemzzz

    bAd Hominemzzz Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, I'd like to thank you for not being aggressive and arrogant in your post, unlike most of the people on this forum who just rant and rave.

    Secondly, I will respond to your assertion that everyone should pay equal taxes. I'll attempt to explain the idea behind taxing the rich a higher percentage. Let's say currency is water, so that's what the government will be taxing. The poor have 1 cup and the rich have 1 gallon. For simplicity's sake, let's say that the tax is 50%. So after taxes, the poor have a .5 cup and the rich have .5 gallon. Although they both had the same percentage taken off, the sacrifice was MUCH more for the person with the cup of water than the person with the gallon because you can't live on the .5 cup, whereas the .5 gallon is livable. Now this is fine in a vacuum. But taxes exist to bring in revenue for the government. So the idea of raising taxes on the rich can achieve one of two things: 1) it can bring down taxes for the poor, while keeping the government's revenue the same or 2) it will increase revenue but the people will still have a livable amount of water.

    Now, the reason that Democrats regard not raising taxes as protecting the rich and greedy is that they believe that, like the aforementioned example, even after taxing the rich slightly more, the sacrifice is still much greater for the poor (even though they payed a lower percentage). There seems no real reason NOT to tax the rich more (especially in a huge deficit like we currently have) because it will increase revenue while not putting any extra burden on the people who already give a huge sacrifice.
     
  3. hockeychick10197

    hockeychick10197 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok. I understand that the poor struggle, and having to pay taxes is a huge burdon for them. But, the rich are already paying a HUGE amount of money to the government. Alot of the rich, not all, but alot, have worked their butts off to get to where they are today. They had to make sacrifice after sacrifice to be able to live the life they want to live. And now, the government is going to say, oh we know you worked hard and sacrificed to get the money you have earned, but we think that you now should have to pay more than everyone else. Why even bother going to Law school or Med school if you are just going to end up making the same as a restaurant manager after taxes? I know a doctor who did 10 years of schooling while raising 4 children and taking care of his wife. They sacrificed for probably 20 years. Lived just like the poor does until he could get the experience needed and build up his company. Now he is in his mid 50's, has created an amazing private practice, and saves peoples lives everyday. He makes approx 450 a year. Well over 150 goes to taxes which leaves him with 300. With a mortgage, car payments and bills... 300 is not a whole lot, considering how hard he worked to get here. He chose to go to college after highschool, and chose to go to medschool because its his passion and he loves helping people, but because he is saving peoples lives everyday, while putting his ass on the line, he deserves more money than a typical plumber or truck driver in my opinion and shouldnt be punished for his good work ethic, hard work, drive, motivation and sacrifice. Not everyone can be rich. It just wont happen. It cant happen, well not in a free society. America is meant to have different social levels for a reason. We are free to do whatever we want. Some people just dont want to have to do the schooling and have to pay off the gigantic loans and sacrifice to be able to make more money than others, and thats their choice. So they can get a lower paying job, because they are free and can do whatever they want. Thats the beauty of America! I say we reward young entrepreneurs for wanting to open their own business and create jobs, not punish them! Obama, raise taxes on the rich... see how many jobs it creates... I dare you! Like I said, its the principle of the idea. Why should the rich have to pay more because of their choice to work hard to get a well paying job? Its descrimination in my opinion.

     
  4. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Democrats talk about taxing the rich, but didn't when they could have. Why not? Because, like Republicans, the rich contribute a lot to their re-election campaign (and other "charities"). (*)(*)(*)(*) off the rich, your opponent gets lots of campaign funding, you get a lot of PAC attack ads.

    But, lets say politicians grow a spine and tax the rich at 100% and you pay off todays deficit, but tomorrow, more go on SSI / Medicare, and the deficit continues to grow.

    That also assumes the rich continue to earn the same, and take no actions to reduce their tax burder. Ain't gonna happen, $1.6T buys a lot of tax attorney time.

    So, we have two choices. Cut spending, including SSI and Medicare, now, or it will be cut by the bankruptcy court in the not too distant future.
     
  5. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    good question the majority of the republican voter base are poor and lower middle class americans in some of the poorest states in the US (refer to red states)...they predominantly vote for republicans due to their social interests over their economic interests unfortunately...

    many of them are really conservative christian and think democrats are the party of the anti-christ, their churches get funding by republican rich people mostly from oil businessmen in texas/alaska and other business elites to perpetuate this blasphemy and hence they get alot of christian votes as this is a predominant christian country.
     
  6. bAd Hominemzzz

    bAd Hominemzzz Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I completely understand this argument, you make two unfair assumptions about poor people: 1) Poor people don't work hard, and 2) Everyone starts on equal footing in this country. Both of these are untrue. You said that your friend chose to go to college, and the poor people chose to have low paying jobs because they're lazy. But what if they couldn't go to college because they couldn't afford it? What if their high school was so dangerous that they couldn't finish all 4 years? Not everyone had the same opportunities as your doctor friend. Some people simply couldn't go to college. Does that mean that they don't work hard? Of course not. A lot of poor people work two jobs just to get by; they sleep 4 hours out of every day and almost never get to see their family. You can't tell me that those people don't work hard, their work is just less lucrative than that of a doctor or lawyer.
    Raising taxes isn't intended to punish success, that's absurd. It's intended to attempt to level the playing field between people who were born into a lot of opportunity (not that they don't work hard) and people who were not (who also work hard).
     
  7. Beevee

    Beevee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your remarks might have some validity if the single working man was not paying Federal taxes at the rate of 20% while the 'rich' man who is living off investment income pays a rate of 15%

    http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
     
  8. Satura

    Satura New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with this completely.

    I think it ridiculous to presume that socio-economic stratification is based almost entirely on "hard work." We all know that certain minorities (Hispanics and African-Americans, to name two) are extremely under-represented in the elite classes, and we can also gather from research that this has more to do with genetic and environmental causes than the volume of sweat on somebody's forehead. On the flip side, certain minorities are also over-represented in elite professions and at elite schools in America (Jews and Asian-Americans, to name two again), for the same environmental and genetic reasons.

    There's a pretty well-known African-American who was born to emotionally unstable parents in Hawaii in one of the lowest economic quartiles, found a deep inner drive, worked harder than most of us know how to work, and is now President of the United States. Also, he likes saying that he wants to "raise taxes for people like me, who can afford it."
     
  9. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Eliminating the incentive to invest will mean fewer companies get started. Less corporate tax collected. Fewer people hired. That hurts the poor more than the rich.

    And, it isn't only the rich that invest, the major portion is retirement savings.
     
  10. since1981

    since1981 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A flat-tax would motivate the less-fortunate, putting them on the same playing field as everyone else. There would no more excuses.
     
  11. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As long as there are those that want a nanny state, they will be excuses.

    How do you think we got this deep in debt, with this level of taxation?
     
  12. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Will the level playing field include going to the same schools as rich kids do?
     
  13. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And buy the sames houses, drive the same cars, take the same vacations.
     
  14. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So your post is supposed to indicate that going to the best schools is like buying a car.

    That's how confused market evangelists are.
     
  15. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. You say equal opportunity, but want equal outcome (big house, fancy car).

    It sin't just the "school" that defines a good education. A significant part of the difference between good schools and bad schools is parental involvement, which requires a respect for education.

    I live in a rural town with lots of Hispanic families, where the parents were born out of country. When our school have open houses, they are packed. Parents want to see their kids are getting a good education.

    The nearby city also has a large Hispanic population, mostly second and third generation. Their schools get few parents during open house.

    Which get the better school, whose kids get the better education.

    Will better teachers, better facilities, books, etc. make a bit of difference when kids could care less? Will poor teachers, shabby surroundings stifle those with the yearn to learn?
     
  16. Landru Guide Us

    Landru Guide Us Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, I asked if an equal playing field includes going to the best schools that the rich can afford.

    Clearly it does, and as a result you've posted a bunch of verbiage to mask the fact that you look foolish. I never mentioned houses and cars. You did. Stop projecting.
     
  17. stonehorse

    stonehorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's see ..... was it cutting taxes and going to war?
     
  18. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Both, supported by both parties.

    Even with the Bush tax cut, federal income was $150B higher in 2005, than 2000, and was $500B when he handed the reigns to Obama.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

    Was either eliminated when the Democrats had total control? They had more important things to worry about, special interests to pay back and more debt to add to the pile.
     
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lets not denigrate the issue of debt to simply being an issue of Democrats vs Republicans.
    It should simply be an issue of what caused it, and what can we do to fix it.

    To be clear, you are saying that both the Bush tax cuts, and the war contributed to the debt?

    -Meta
     
  20. stonehorse

    stonehorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to the chart posted by Not Amused expenditures doubled in the ten years from 1999 to 2009. But revenues went up a small percentage.

    One would have to think that the tax cuts and the wars and the unfunded medicare drug plan had a lot to do with this.

    Even if the economy is stalled revenue should increase due to population increase and inflation.

    Blaming Democrats or Republicans ignores the current state of American politics in which both parties are "corporate" parties, both fishing for campaign donations from the same deep pockets.

    The greatest threat to democracy is not the Tea party or either political party. It is our campaign funding. It crated this oligarchy that can only thrive in the absence of democracy.
     
  21. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anything that buys favor. Campaign funding, fancy trips, employment for the politician, friends or family, etc. Even stock tips - apparently congress is immune to insider trading laws....

    The result isn't just more expensive government, but also more expensive goods and services. Regulations create barriers to entry, so corporations can make higher profits, and unions get special treatment, to requiring even higher profits.

    I am part of a rural road committee. Replacing a road with 65 properties on it is going to cost $350K, if we do it ourselves. If we get the county involved, they mandate "prevailing wage", in deference to the unions.
     
  22. stonehorse

    stonehorse New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I too was on a rural road committee. Out of 26 miles of road only about 1 mile is paved. But we have to get a contractor in every spring and fall to regrade and replace base rock.

    We do this with about 800 dues paying owners and it costs us each about $400/yr. This includes snow plowing in our heavy snow mountain area.

    The problem isn't union costs. It's getting contractors to bid on a job this remote.

    There is a good reason for prevailing wages. Without some protection out of area contractors would come in with a workforce that has no health insurance, pension or living wage. This puts a load on the local emergency room and lowers the prosperity of the community. Since the prevailing wage is lower than union scale it's hard to see how it can be called preferential to unions.

    Regulations creating barriers to entry? I don't know. Maybe some need a look at. But we wouldn't have had the last bust if Glass Steigal hadn't been axed during the Clinton administration. Corporations need regulation. As does anything that operates on greed and fear.
     
  23. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not limiting this to D vs R, it is D & R. Wars, SSI, corporate welfare, Obamacare, yada yada yada - it all needs to be on the block.

    It is just the D's want to raise taxes, not cut.

    But both parties are striving for a $3T cut - OVER 10 YEARS - are you kidding me - we will only go $1T negative a years instead of $1.3T. I'm so relieved - NOT.
     
  24. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well OK. o_O

    But, just to be 100% sure we're all on the same page,
    you are saying that the Bush tax cuts and the wars contributed to the debt,
    right? Yes or no???

    -Meta
     
  25. Beevee

    Beevee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    13,916
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Which is a government mistake by taxing it, when the same should only be done if the investment income exceeds a certain figure.
     

Share This Page