Democrats and Tax Rates

[KevinWestern]

I used to be a Democrat, but are no longer. Why'd I change my mind? Because I was sick of being continually manipulated and used like a tool.

Let me give the rundown. What happens when you raise taxes on the rich? First, you mainly impact people who are making less than $1 million a year. These are the people who are small business owners, successful, productive, income driven, and who don't have the time or ability to Lobby Congress. They are the best and brightest of America, and simply trying to live good lives.

Who don’t you impact? The people who are worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. These are the guys who dine with royalty and have the ability to tell a Congressperson to exempt their company from the taxation. You think they're just going to give away $100 million more a year in taxes? Lol, you're living in a fantasy world.

Let me lay it bluntly – when you lobby for higher taxation on “the Rich”, most of the SUPER RICH will be right behind you, and why? Because you’re working for them! The burden of the tax increase will be laid against our innovators, our productive entrepreneurs while the guys at the very top will get to watch the competition crumble from their safe, comfortable perches.

It's insane guys. There's still time to turn over to the light side...


.

 

[bendog]

But then why do the superrich bankroll the TPM?

Mind you, I'm not totally disagreeing. For example upping the income tax rate on those making 250-500K is largely absurd, since those making more will find ways to avoid it anyway. But still.

 

[KevinWestern]

But then why do the superrich bankroll the TPM?

What's the TPM?

 

[bendog]

But then why do the superrich bankroll the TPM?

What's the TPM?

Also, I should clarify, obviously not all "super rich" people are going to be crony and corrupt.

well, no. Obviously Bill Gates and many of the msft startup millionaires are committed to the middle class, from whence they came.

The tea party movement is funded by, inter alia, the Kochs, Mellon Scafide, Phillip Morris and heirs, Murdoch .....

 

[KevinWestern]

But then why do the superrich bankroll the TPM?

What's the TPM?

Also, I should clarify, obviously not all "super rich" people are going to be crony and corrupt.

well, no. Obviously Bill Gates and many of the msft startup millionaires are committed to the middle class, from whence they came.

The tea party movement is funded by, inter alia, the Kochs, Mellon Scafide, Phillip Morris and heirs, Murdoch .....

I get what you’re saying. Well, let me say that there are industries and sectors (like tobacco, that’s regulated up the ass thanks to popular demand) that do indeed have a genuine vested interest in a smaller government. It will help business. Secondly, we already established that (obviously) not all billionaires are going to be bad people bent on controlling society. Third, it was a new popular movement and (unfortunately) many of these rich interests probably wanted to start exerting their influence on the group early on. It’s a good topic to explore.

 

[bendog]

If it were up to me, we'd just tax passive income at the same rate as ordinary income, with credit for losses, and not have lower rates for investment capital, and pretty much treat the super rich the same as a guy making 500K for income tax purposes. I also don't see any good from taxing corporations.

There's no doubt that the dems do practice class warfare, as do some of the superrich.

If a govt wants to raise revenues to do something, like insure the uninsured, it may not be all bad. All taxes are unfair, but the question comes down to who can afford them, and who benefits from the labor of those to whom some govt benefit is aimed at, so as to fix some society ill. The dems tend to want to raise taxes to punish people.

 

[KevinWestern]

If it were up to me, we'd just tax passive income at the same rate as ordinary income, with credit for losses, and not have lower rates for investment capital, and pretty much treat the super rich the same as a guy making 500K for income tax purposes. I also don't see any good from taxing corporations.

There's no doubt that the dems do practice class warfare, as do some of the superrich.

If a govt wants to raise revenues to do something, like insure the uninsured, it may not be all bad. All taxes are unfair, but the question comes down to who can afford them, and who benefits from the labor of those to whom some govt benefit is aimed at, so as to fix some society ill. The dems tend to want to raise taxes to punish people.

Oh I get you. I’m a fan of social safety nets, sensible welfare, etc, however the point I’m driving here is that people think they’re fighting for one thing, when really they’re fighting for another.

Another stance is that most can agree our gov’t is overrun by special interests, corporate lobbyists, etc; why the heck would we want to give them more money, lol? They just spent $4 trillion of it invading a country that never attacked us. There’s so much pork, so many special deals, so much waste. It’s ridiculous. We need to spend efficiently and realize that funneling money to the poor via the government is an atrocious idea given the current state of things.

Maybe if our gov’t was less corrupt, I’d have a different view.

 

[bendog]

If it were up to me, we'd just tax passive income at the same rate as ordinary income, with credit for losses, and not have lower rates for investment capital, and pretty much treat the super rich the same as a guy making 500K for income tax purposes. I also don't see any good from taxing corporations.

There's no doubt that the dems do practice class warfare, as do some of the superrich.

If a govt wants to raise revenues to do something, like insure the uninsured, it may not be all bad. All taxes are unfair, but the question comes down to who can afford them, and who benefits from the labor of those to whom some govt benefit is aimed at, so as to fix some society ill. The dems tend to want to raise taxes to punish people.

Oh I get you. I’m a fan of social safety nets, sensible welfare, etc, however the point I’m driving here is that people think they’re fighting for one thing, when really they’re fighting for another.

Another stance is that most can agree our gov’t is overrun by special interests, corporate lobbyists, etc; why the heck would we want to give them more money, lol? They just spent $4 trillion of it invading a country that never attacked us. There’s so much pork, so many special deals, so much waste. It’s ridiculous. We need to spend efficiently and realize that funneling money to the poor via the government is an atrocious idea given the current state of things.

Maybe if our gov’t was less corrupt, I’d have a different view.

yeah and both parties. I'm not sure I see a way to make a flat tax work, and doing away with the mortgage deduction would have large employment effects, but the tax breaks are obscene.

Not to hijack the thread, but if the TPM split off from the gop, it might not be horrible, because main street could aim for the middle, and force the dems to confront their base.

 

[ron4342]

What's the TPM?

Also, I should clarify, obviously not all "super rich" people are going to be crony and corrupt.

well, no. Obviously Bill Gates and many of the msft startup millionaires are committed to the middle class, from whence they came.

The tea party movement is funded by, inter alia, the Kochs, Mellon Scafide, Phillip Morris and heirs, Murdoch .....

I get what you’re saying. Well, let me say that there are industries and sectors (like tobacco, that’s regulated up the ass thanks to popular demand) that do indeed have a genuine vested interest in a smaller government. It will help business. Secondly, we already established that (obviously) not all billionaires are going to be bad people bent on controlling society. Third, it was a new popular movement and (unfortunately) many of these rich interests probably wanted to start exerting their influence on the group early on. It’s a good topic to explore.

Let me correct one of your statements. You wrote that there are interests and sectors who "have a genuine vested interest in a smaller government. It will help business."
You should have referred to those businesses and sectors having a vested interest in being able to do whatever they want without government regulations or interference regardless of the damage it does to the people and/or the environment. In other words they want smaller government because they want to rape the people and the environment without anyone or anything getting in their way.

 

[KevinWestern]

Let me correct one of your statements. You wrote that there are interests and sectors who "have a genuine vested interest in a smaller government. It will help business."
You should have referred to those businesses and sectors having a vested interest in being able to do whatever they want without government regulations or interference regardless of the damage it does to the people and/or the environment. In other words they want smaller government because they want to rape the people and the environment without anyone or anything getting in their way.
[/SIZE]

I think you’re expanding out into an area of discussion that wasn’t initially outlined in the OP. My main point I’m making here is that Democrats lead their constituents to believe that “raising taxes on the rich” will be a major step towards “leveling out the playing field” whereas I think it’s just the opposite and will even be very damaging to our economy.

Of course I still feel there are important roles the government needs to play (like making sure a business isn’t dumping toxic waste into the river, etc), however we often find – once again via crony capitalism – that the companies that get hit the hardest with these environmental regulations/health regulations, etc tend to be the little guys. There are a long list of huge companies that donate a lot of money who are exempt from many of these environmental laws. That kills competition - you know?

Case and point: I know a baker out here (20 something) trying to get her business off the ground and thanks to these insane regulations setup by the City of Chicago (about $25k in licensing fees, requirement of a commercial kitchen, etc, etc) this sort of thing is damn near impossible. Regulations often prevent new, fresh businesses from popping up and competing (at the benefit of the consumer), and “lock into place” the powerhouses like Starbucks, McDonalds, etc who can afford these costs without hesitation.

 

[g5000]

If it were up to me, we'd just tax passive income at the same rate as ordinary income, with credit for losses, and not have lower rates for investment capital, and pretty much treat the super rich the same as a guy making 500K for income tax purposes. I also don't see any good from taxing corporations.

There's no doubt that the dems do practice class warfare, as do some of the superrich.

If a govt wants to raise revenues to do something, like insure the uninsured, it may not be all bad. All taxes are unfair, but the question comes down to who can afford them, and who benefits from the labor of those to whom some govt benefit is aimed at, so as to fix some society ill. The dems tend to want to raise taxes to punish people.

Oh I get you. I’m a fan of social safety nets, sensible welfare, etc, however the point I’m driving here is that people think they’re fighting for one thing, when really they’re fighting for another.

Another stance is that most can agree our gov’t is overrun by special interests, corporate lobbyists, etc; why the heck would we want to give them more money, lol? They just spent $4 trillion of it invading a country that never attacked us. There’s so much pork, so many special deals, so much waste. It’s ridiculous. We need to spend efficiently and realize that funneling money to the poor via the government is an atrocious idea given the current state of things.

Maybe if our gov’t was less corrupt, I’d have a different view.

yeah and both parties. I'm not sure I see a way to make a flat tax work, and doing away with the mortgage deduction would have large employment effects

No, it would not. Doing away with the mortgage interest deduction would have no impact on employment or home ownership rates.

, but the tax breaks are obscene.

Yes, they are. But the moment you allow one tax break, you have re-opened the door for corruption to come rushing back in.

All tax expenditures should be banned. All of them. It won't matter what tax structure you have (income tax, flat tax, Fair Tax, sales tax) if you do not eliminate the avenues of corruption.

 

[g5000]

It's a simple fact that people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax. This is a gigantic signal that something is seriously out of whack, and that something is tax expenditures.