Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[Full-Auto]

The reason most of those countries are not threats is because we have been economic and military allies for over 50 years

China has no desires to attack the US. They are incapable of attacking Taiwan and Taiwan is only 90 miles away. Attacking the most powerful nation in history from over 5000 miles away is nonsense

Our presence around the world does prevent wars. But it is high time that the US insist that the other industrialized nations take over that role in their sphere of influence.

Nobody is advocating isolationism. But there is no reason we should force Americans to sacrifice and accumulate debt while we play policeman

And we're only allies because we're so powerful and what makes us powerful is our military and the technology we possess..

Do you really believe geo-politics are about liking a country or a culture????

Funny how we bombed the fuck out of Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, yet we portray that shit as somekind of human rights effort, yet Saudi Arabia is a ultra conservative Sharia nation that demands harsh punishment for anyone who strays from the Sharia faith..

Why do our humanitarian efforts stop at Saudi Arabia?? oh yeah they have lots of oil and I suppose that is the only damn reason why we like them geo-politically..

When it comes to geo-politics - it has nothing to do with friendship and everything to do with "what can you do for me."

Are you that twisted that you think other nations are our allies because we have so many weapons? We are allies because we maintain close ties both economically and militarily. We have each others backs.

I was perfectly willing to go kick some Saudi ass after 9-11. I still am
The public ass kissing that Bush gave the Saudis after 9-11 was humiliating

Easy RW, comments like that could get you hugged by the rightwing moonbats.

 

[hortysir]

I certainly don't. I'd just like them to pay their fair share in taxes.

I don't think you hate wealthy people.

I just think that you are envious of their wealth.


Please define "fair share".
What magic number would be a perfect tax rate?

 

[Cuyo]

You literally have nothing to say whatsoever do you?

Just nuh-uh. You should make that your user title.

Full-Auto
Nuh-uh!
Member #19660

LOL From another crying bitch. Are you guys the new BUTT HURT BROTHERS?

Nuh-uh!

 

[Full-Auto]

LOL From another crying bitch. Are you guys the new BUTT HURT BROTHERS?

Nuh-uh!

Great COMEBACK.

 

[Cuyo]

Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

They paid a smaller percentage of total taxes under Clinton than they did under Bush, but don't let the facts get in the way of your jihad against people who are smarter and harder working than you.

Because the middle class was stronger then, dingus.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll answer your question in a moment, but first I want to point out that you're using a statistical inversion fallacy. You're confusing two different measures:

1) What percentage of their income the rich pay in taxes; and
2) What percentage of total tax revenues the rich pay.

That the rich pay only 21% of their income in taxes, and that they pay 40% of all taxes, are not contradictory. Both could be true at the same time, if the rich hold a large share of the income, which is obviously true.

Now, why should they pay a higher percentage? Because, as you are prone to point out, a dollar is "just a worthless piece of paper." Its value lies in what it can buy. And so the value of a tax debt, from the perspective of the individual taxpayer, is determined by what the money would otherwise be used for.

There is a hierarchy of things that everyone does with their income.

First, they take care of necessities: food, shelter, clothing, and those expenditures necessary to survive and make a living.

Second, they spend money on luxuries: things they could do without, but would like to have.

Third, they save money for security or to make a big planned purchase.

Fourth, they invest in activities that produce real wealth: businesses that grow crops, make goods, or perform services.

Fifth, they invest in financial instruments that amount to gambling: activities that don't produce any real wealth but may succeed in generating a profit by shuffling money from one person to another.

The poorest people never get past the first step. Working class people are generally confined to the first three categories. Middle-class people are also usually confined to the first three categories and sometimes into the fourth. The richest people put their money into all five categories, and the richer they are, the more of their money goes into the fifth category (except when, by temperament, they prefer to engage in charitable activities instead -- but that of course is tax deductible).

When money is taken by the government in taxes, the taxpayer cuts spending in these categories in reverse order. So a tax bill that, for a working-class person, would mean less spent on luxuries or less money saved, for a very rich person cuts only into his gambling money.

A rich person's money, in other words, isn't worth as much to him as a poorer person's. He can pay a much higher percentage of his income in taxes before he gets to the point where he's actually losing anything of value.

Taxes should be levied so as to do two things: defray government expenses, and do the least possible harm. And that means they should be taken mostly from the rich.

Only imbeciles fall for the kind of demagoguery you posted. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Trying to rationalize that some dollars are not worth as much as other dollars is Marxist con.

If income taxes were paid based on a strait percentage, the rich would still pay vastly more than the poor, so you still haven't justified a progressive income tax. In fact, taking from the rich harms the economy more than taking from the poor because the bulk of the income of the rich is invested. It helps grow the economy, whereas all the income of the poor goes to current consumption.

Of course, you attempt to conflate the value of these two things because you're trying to justify parasitism. Your scale of value as to what is beneficial to the economy is precisely backwards. Money invested in "financial instruments" is not "gambling." It invariably ends up being used to purchase productive capital like plant and equipment. Money given to welfare parasites ends up being used to buy Mad Dog 20/20. The idea that the later benefits the economy while the former doesn't is just too absurd for words.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The reason most of those countries are not threats is because we have been economic and military allies for over 50 years

China has no desires to attack the US. They are incapable of attacking Taiwan and Taiwan is only 90 miles away. Attacking the most powerful nation in history from over 5000 miles away is nonsense

Our presence around the world does prevent wars. But it is high time that the US insist that the other industrialized nations take over that role in their sphere of influence.

Nobody is advocating isolationism. But there is no reason we should force Americans to sacrifice and accumulate debt while we play policeman

And we're only allies because we're so powerful and what makes us powerful is our military and the technology we possess..

Do you really believe geo-politics are about liking a country or a culture????

Funny how we bombed the fuck out of Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, yet we portray that shit as somekind of human rights effort, yet Saudi Arabia is a ultra conservative Sharia nation that demands harsh punishment for anyone who strays from the Sharia faith..

Why do our humanitarian efforts stop at Saudi Arabia?? oh yeah they have lots of oil and I suppose that is the only damn reason why we like them geo-politically..

When it comes to geo-politics - it has nothing to do with friendship and everything to do with "what can you do for me."

Are you that twisted that you think other nations are our allies because we have so many weapons? We are allies because we maintain close ties both economically and militarily. We have each others backs.

I was perfectly willing to go kick some Saudi ass after 9-11. I still am
The public ass kissing that Bush gave the Saudis after 9-11 was humiliating

You just proved my point in your own post.

Our allies aren't friends because they believe we're a jolly nation - they're our friends because we do stuff for them and they do stuff for us...

Protection is certainly one of the benefits of being an ally with the US...

 

[bripat9643]

Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

They paid a smaller percentage of total taxes under Clinton than they did under Bush, but don't let the facts get in the way of your jihad against people who are smarter and harder working than you.

Because the middle class was stronger then, dingus.

Prove it, dipstick.

 

[kiwiman127]

The reason why conservatives think liberals hate rich people is because they (conservatives) are illogical, and jump to that conclusion from the fact that liberals want rich people restrained from being able to run amok, destroy the rights of working people, ravage the environment, provoke foreign wars, and cannibalize the economy.

It's no more true that liberals "hate" rich people, than that those who prefer crimes of violence to be punished under the law, "hate" people with anger-management issues.

I would suggest learning capitalism and learning what makes a dollar valuable before you go making fucked up assertions..

You dumb motherfuckers act like the rich are trying to eliminate the middle class. In REALITY the rich need the middle class, because after all its the middle class who buy the product they're selling that in turn made them rich, and its the middle class that are manufacturing that product...

I'm sick of dumb fucks like yourself portraying the wealthy as a bunch of nefarious greedy demons...

"You dumb motherfuckers act like the rich are trying to eliminate the middle class. In REALITY the rich need the middle class, because after all its the middle class who buy the product they're selling that in turn made them rich, and its the middle class that are manufacturing that product"

The problem with your analysis is that in order for the middle class to buy enough products the middle class has to have enough expendable income to do so.
With wages being stagnant the last thirty years and basically going backwards the last ten years, the middle class has been losing expendable income. And that's the Big Problem.
Who controls wages?

Businesses have been holding down wages in order to enhance the bottom-line. It wasn't always like that. Businesses are in business to make monies and businesses made money. But somewhere, someone decided to hold down wages to increase the shareholders profits while at the same time holding down the workers share reward for their contribution towards the profits. It's now a very sad trend. Is the working class supposed to be happy about their reduced role in the US economy?

Graph 1, shows the income growth of the top percentiles, while at the same time shows the downwards trend of the working classes income.

Graph 2, shows the decline of the working classes share of the National Income.

I would guess a majority of those crying and moaning about liberals hating the rich have seen their long-term wages effectively diminishing in Real Dollars. I bet that group has seen their expendable income shrink. They may have seen their wages grow, but was that growth running ahead of inflation? Chances are great that those wages didn't keep up with inflation.

I'm not a liberal but I am Main Street America and as poll after poll shows, people are not happy with the growing income inequality and that's where the anger takes place. To sit there and accept flat wages while the job creators and those who determine wages see their wealth make tremendous growth and not be concerned isn't human nature.

 

[Oddball]

Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

Great moments in non sequitur!

 

[Oldstyle]

What is their fair share?

The top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.

Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

Unless you have some way of magically making the Dot Com Boom come back to CREATE that budget surplus, Winger...what you're talking about is nonsense. Plus the reason we HAD a budget surplus was that Clinton's spending was kept under control by a GOP Congress that repeatedly rejected bigger budgets by Slick Willie. That's the thing that liberals who worship at the Clinton "altar" always seem to overlook.

 

[kiwiman127]

It's consistent.

Those defending the wealthy use the event of how much of the taxes the wealthy pay, why not addresss the actual income gap and the factual growing income inequality? Why not address the wealthy's share of the National Income which has grown leaps and bounds, while the working class's share of the National Income has dropped like a rock.?

 

[Oddball]

It's consistent.

Those defending the wealthy use the event of how much of the taxes the wealthy pay, why not addresss the actual income gap and the factual growing income inequality? Why not address the wealthy's share of the National Income which has grown leaps and bounds, while the working class's share of the National Income has dropped like a rock.?

In the meantime, the working class has never been wealthier in terms of things like square footage of living space, televisions, cable/satellite teevee, automobiles, central heating and air, etcetera...

In any case, how is any of this claimed "income disparity" the fault of the wealthy?

 

[hortysir]

It's consistent.

Those defending the wealthy use the event of how much of the taxes the wealthy pay, why not addresss the actual income gap and the factual growing income inequality? Why not address the wealthy's share of the National Income which has grown leaps and bounds, while the working class's share of the National Income has dropped like a rock.?

I just want to know what this magic number of "fair share" is.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The reason why conservatives think liberals hate rich people is because they (conservatives) are illogical, and jump to that conclusion from the fact that liberals want rich people restrained from being able to run amok, destroy the rights of working people, ravage the environment, provoke foreign wars, and cannibalize the economy.

It's no more true that liberals "hate" rich people, than that those who prefer crimes of violence to be punished under the law, "hate" people with anger-management issues.

I would suggest learning capitalism and learning what makes a dollar valuable before you go making fucked up assertions..

You dumb motherfuckers act like the rich are trying to eliminate the middle class. In REALITY the rich need the middle class, because after all its the middle class who buy the product they're selling that in turn made them rich, and its the middle class that are manufacturing that product...

I'm sick of dumb fucks like yourself portraying the wealthy as a bunch of nefarious greedy demons...

"You dumb motherfuckers act like the rich are trying to eliminate the middle class. In REALITY the rich need the middle class, because after all its the middle class who buy the product they're selling that in turn made them rich, and its the middle class that are manufacturing that product"

The problem with your analysis is that in order for the middle class to buy enough products the middle class has to have enough expendable income to do so.
With wages being stagnant the last thirty years and basically going backwards the last ten years, the middle class has been losing expendable income. And that's the Big Problem.
Who controls wages?

Businesses have been holding down wages in order to enhance the bottom-line. It wasn't always like that. Businesses are in business to make monies and businesses made money. But somewhere, someone decided to hold down wages to increase the shareholders profits while at the same time holding down the workers share reward for their contribution towards the profits. It's now a very sad trend. Is the working class supposed to be happy about their reduced role in the US economy?

Graph 1, shows the income growth of the top percentiles, while at the same time shows the downwards trend of the working classes income.

Graph 2, shows the decline of the working classes share of the National Income.

I would guess a majority of those crying and moaning about liberals hating the rich have seen their long-term wages effectively diminishing in Real Dollars. I bet that group has seen their expendable income shrink. They may have seen their wages grow, but was that growth running ahead of inflation? Chances are great that those wages didn't keep up with inflation.

I'm not a liberal but I am Main Street America and as poll after poll shows, people are not happy with the growing income inequality and that's where the anger takes place. To sit there and accept flat wages while the job creators and those who determine wages see their wealth make tremendous growth and not be concerned isn't human nature.

That is exactly why you cut taxes and cut government spending...

The more money individuals have and business owners have means more money will be being spent and that creates a demand for product hence a demand for jobs.

What progressives want is for the government to provide them with money or a job... That's what the communists did.

What democrats obviously want is equal income distribution... The doctor makes as much as the guy shoveling shit - despite the fact the doctor had to spend 12 years learning his trade while just about anyone could shovel shit.

Medical doctors (for example) get paid well for what they do because no everyone is intelligent enough or willing to spend 12 years learning, therefore there are less doctors and more shit shovelers and that creates a demand for medical doctors.

Supply and demand is pretty simple, yet progressives seem to have a difficult time understanding that.

Why the fuck should someone work extremely hard to be the best and then get shit for it because others are envious because they lost???

Besides, it takes financial risk to receive reward.... It just seems progressives would rather buy a lotto ticket than take a financial risk and invest in something they believe may make them rich one day..

Progressives act like they or our government are somehow entitled to others success...

It's the fault of the 40-year-old burger flipping progressive that they make 8 bucks an hour - it's not the rich individuals fault, so why the fuck should the rich individual be obligated to care for them??? they have a worth to society and that worth is flipping burgers and anyone can do that so they won't be getting a 100k a year salary for doing what anyone can do...

 

[ba1614]

here's a clue...you 1/2% ows'ers don't SPEAK for the rest of us you all like to call the 99%...you don't have our permission and I demand (since that is your gig) to STOP..

We speak for your interests. If we don't at the same time represent your opinions, that's because you have been deluded by those who are fleecing you.

Demand we "stop" all you like. We won't.

You don't speak for the interests of any American who actually produces something of value. You speak for useless parasites who suck off the taxpayers.

Bingo!

 

[kiwiman127]

From 1979 to 2007, the Top 1% saw their share of the National Income grow from 10.5% to 21.3%.

At the same time, the next top percentile (81-99%) so their share drop from 39.1% to 38.6% of the National Income.

And during that same time period, the Middle Class three groupings saw their share of the National Income drop from 47.9% down to 38.5%.

Graph 1, shows the pieces of the pie of the National Income in 1979.

Graph 2, shows the pieces of the National Income pie in 2007.

"In any case, how is any of this claimed "income disparity" the fault of the wealthy?"-Oddball

Who benefits from the flat wage that enhance the wealth of the shareholders? Who owns most of the wealth and businesses who benefit from the added profits due to flat wages?

 

[ba1614]

It's consistent.

Those defending the wealthy use the event of how much of the taxes the wealthy pay, why not addresss the actual income gap and the factual growing income inequality? Why not address the wealthy's share of the National Income which has grown leaps and bounds, while the working class's share of the National Income has dropped like a rock.?

Because there is nothing stopping the folks who want more from bettering themselves to get what they feel they deserve.

Too many are unwilling to go the extra mile because it seems so easy,(and it's the popular thing today), to stand around dick in hand crying "the evil rich guy makes more than my useless ass, boohooohooo".

 

[Mr.Nick]

It's consistent.

Those defending the wealthy use the event of how much of the taxes the wealthy pay, why not addresss the actual income gap and the factual growing income inequality? Why not address the wealthy's share of the National Income which has grown leaps and bounds, while the working class's share of the National Income has dropped like a rock.?

Fuck the income gap - that's your problem not those who worked hard and eventually became successful.

People shouldn't be obligated to just give the government or anyone money just because they're successful and have money...

Besides, the wealthy I know donate massively to private charities that actually do help the needy, unlike our government that uses tax dollars just to buy votes with the money. Promising welfare fucks unlimited amount of time living on the taxpayers coin just for a vote..

Also, if people want a better income than maybe they should learn a skill thats in high demand or take a risk and buy a stock.... Obviously they're too fucking lazy or frugal to do that otherwise they'd be in the 1% instead of envying those that did take that risk or dedicated time to learning a skill that was in high demand.

 

[Dragon]

Because there is nothing stopping the folks who want more from bettering themselves to get what they feel they deserve.

Sure there is: the fact that only so many people can be successful. How many "so many" actually is, is determined by the rules of the economic game.

Right now, we have economic game rules that are directed towards maximizing the winnings of the biggest winners, rather than opening opportunities for everyone else. That means that the opportunities are much less than they were when I was a boy and the orientation of government policy was the direct opposite.

It will always be possible for "the best" -- the most dedicated, the smartest, the hardest-working -- to achieve success. What varies is how good someone has to be to be one of "the best."