Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[bripat9643]

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.

Horseshit:

Here's an easy rule of thumb for determining what the truth is: the exact opposite of what Dragon posts.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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."

Bullshit....

Success is relative to supply and demand...

For example - if everyone became a doctor today then the doctor would be making 8 bucks an hour and the shit shoveler would be making 250k...

Wealthy people are only wealthy and successful because there is a high demand for their product or service..

 

[kiwiman127]

This report sure says alot!

"Between the second quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010, real national income in the U.S. increased by $528 billion. Pre-tax corporate profits by themselves had increased by $464 billion while aggregate real wages and salaries rose by only $7 billion or only .1%. Over this six quarter period, corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. The extraordinarily high share of national income (88%) received by corporate profits was by far the highest in the past five recoveries from national recessions"
http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/wp-content/uploads/Who-Had-Benefitted-from-the-Post.pdf

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why should they pay a higher percentage?

Actually, I think those figures are not correct. The figures I've seen say the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of all income taxes.

How does the country get better by making lower income Americans pay a bigger share?

In real life terms, please...

It gets better when everyone pays less. However, everyone should have some skin in the game. When lower incomes pay no taxes, they have no motive to keep government spending under control. Then irresponsible weasels like Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid gain control. They are sending this country swirling down the toilet bowl towards bankruptcy.

1. The Republicans cut lower income Americans' taxes to where they are today, not Pelosi and Reid.

2. You didn't tell me how it makes the country better. 'having skin in the game' is not an answer, it's a catchphrase.

3. You do realize that in order to raise low income Americans' taxes, you'd have to raise everyone's taxes, right? You do realize that there is no politically palatable way to pass legislation that would only raise taxes on low income Americans, right? You do realize that in order to raise low income Americans' taxes,

you'll have to raise your own taxes, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

But it takes 2 jobs per household to do it. People in the so-called working class on working class wages aren't buying homes and raising families, etc., on 1 paycheck,

like my father, and most fathers, did years ago. Years ago as in before someone decided that cutting taxes for the Rich would make everyone's lives better.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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%.

Of course the top 1% pay more in taxes, but given their income, they aren't paying enough. Their tax rates are at an all time low.

Check out the graphs on pages 9-11 in my signature.

So "fair share" isn't defined by how much of the bill they're footing for everyone else. It's defined by, "Goddamnit, those bastards are still REALLY RICH after they pay taxes! We'll fix THAT!"

And that's why conservatives are convinced that liberals hate the rich: because they want to tax them into being poor.

 

[kiwiman127]

Instead of talking point theories, how about we see facts?

I have posted fact after fact after fact. And what do we get in return, talking point theories. Those theories just don't jive with the facts.

Regarding the taxes that the defenders insist on using instead of the realities of income disparities, it's really hard for the Middle Class to pick up more of the tab in taxes, when their wages lose out to inflation, unlike the wealthy, whose income widely grows faster than inflation. The tax tables are afterall, adjusted with inflation.

 

[bripat9643]

1. The Republicans cut lower income Americans' taxes to where they are today, not Pelosi and Reid.

Yes they did, but only because they had to in order to get general tax cuts passed the Dims in Congress. It was bad economic policy but good politics.

2. You didn't tell me how it makes the country better. 'having skin in the game' is not an answer, it's a catchphrase.

Yes I did tell you how it makes the country better. When the poor have an interest in not bankrupting the country, they won't vote for scumbags like Pelosi and Harry Reid who are intent on doing exactly that.

3. You do realize that in order to raise low income Americans' taxes, you'd have to raise everyone's taxes, right? You do realize that there is no politically palatable way to pass legislation that would only raise taxes on low income Americans, right? You do realize that in order to raise low income Americans' taxes,

you'll have to raise your own taxes, right?

Whether it's "political palatable" is an entirely separate issue from whether it's economically or socially desirable. And it wouldn't raise my taxes since I'm in the top 5%. It would lower my taxes.

 

[Dragon]

Bullshit....

Success is relative to supply and demand...

For example - if everyone became a doctor today then the doctor would be making 8 bucks an hour and the shit shoveler would be making 250k...

Wealthy people are only wealthy and successful because there is a high demand for their product or service..

Interesting that you essentially repeat what I said in different language and at the same time call it "bullshit." Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something?

 

[grunt11b]

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

Liberals dont detest the wealthy, we all know this by seeing wealthy liberals like Pelosi and reid and the like. Liberals detest the wealthy that are not on there side of the political spectrum. Most businesses vote Republican, therefore they are a threat to the liberal agenda, so therefore liberals attack business and wealthy people who own businesses through increased taxation and class warfare, and then turn around and say things like "We are not against the wealthy".
Also ,they pay a far higher rate in taxes than everyone else does. And on that same note, I would like those on welfare and government subsidies to pay there fair share in taxes also, I think if the 48% of Americans who live off of government programs paid there fair share in taxes this country would not be in the mess it is currently in, do you agree?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Instead of talking point theories, how about we see facts?

I have posted fact after fact after fact. And what do we get in return, talking point theories. Those theories just don't jive with the facts.

Regarding the taxes that the defenders insist on using instead of the realities of income disparities, it's really hard for the Middle Class to pick up more of the tab in taxes, when their wages lose out to inflation, unlike the wealthy, whose income widely grows faster than inflation. The tax tables are afterall, adjusted with inflation.

No you post opinions - ignorant opinions based on nothing more than speculation and a remedial understanding of economy...

Every point you make is based on the idea that wealth is finite.

For example: the more the wealthy possess the less you have - like our economy is some kind of a glass of water ... That is NOT how capitalism works and that is certainly not how our dollar is valued..

In short you know absolutely nothing and have not stated ONE fact.

As a matter of FACT your economic theory is socialism, and would make sense if this was a socialist economy, however it is not a socialist economy its a capitalist economy (allegedly its supposed to be, now its mixed with more and more emphasis placed on socialism than capitalism which is why intelligent individuals refer to it as crony capitalism).

 

[Dragon]

Every point you make is based on the idea that wealth is finite.

For example: the more the wealthy possess the less you have - like our economy is some kind of a glass of water ... That is NOT how capitalism works and that is certainly not how our dollar is valued..

Actually, if that were true the problem of income inequality would be LESS severe than it is. That would argue that a skewed income distribution means that the non-rich are receiving a smaller slice of a FIXED pie.

In reality, they're receiving a smaller slice of a SMALLER pie. That's because greatly unequal income distribution results in LOWER economic growth, and POORER economic performance in general, than a more equal distribution.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Bullshit....

Success is relative to supply and demand...

For example - if everyone became a doctor today then the doctor would be making 8 bucks an hour and the shit shoveler would be making 250k...

Wealthy people are only wealthy and successful because there is a high demand for their product or service..

Interesting that you essentially repeat what I said in different language and at the same time call it "bullshit." Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something?

What the **** are you talking about???

You claimed success is limited...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Of course you don't. If you did they would slap the hand you have shoved in their face (palm up)

Idiot

 

[Mr.Nick]

Every point you make is based on the idea that wealth is finite.

For example: the more the wealthy possess the less you have - like our economy is some kind of a glass of water ... That is NOT how capitalism works and that is certainly not how our dollar is valued..

Actually, if that were true the problem of income inequality would be LESS severe than it is. That would argue that a skewed income distribution means that the non-rich are receiving a smaller slice of a FIXED pie.

In reality, they're receiving a smaller slice of a SMALLER pie. That's because greatly unequal income distribution results in LOWER economic growth, and POORER economic performance in general, than a more equal distribution.

Funny how you claim you're not a socialist yet you keep on using language like "income inequality"

Then I label all you socialists precisely that and then you turn around and claim you're not socialists...

Like I said previously, your bitching only leads to one solution - INCOME EQUALITY - which is the equal redistribution of wealth by our government and guess what??? that is COMMUNISM..

Also you (or most leftists for that matter) apparently have zero understanding of supply and demand based economics.... If you only had some sort of understanding of the concept you would understand my position on our government, taxes and economy.

 

[Dragon]

What the **** are you talking about???

You claimed success is limited...

So did you. That's what it being a function of supply and demand implies.

 

[Mr.Nick]

What the **** are you talking about???

You claimed success is limited...

So did you. That's what it being a function of supply and demand implies.

I never claimed that...

My point has been and always will be that supply and demand is the basis of capitalism.

Who is preventing you from being successful or inventing a product that could potentially be in demand???

Oh yeah - no one..

For ***** sake some idiot thought it would be awesome if there were onesies for adults and now that guy is rich and a bunch of adults are walking around dressed like babies... So now he/she is part of the 1% all because they envisioned adults walking around in clothing meant for babies, or traditionally associated with babies.

Who the **** walks around dressed as a gigantic baby anyways??? WTF....

 

[Dragon]

Funny how you claim you're not a socialist yet you keep on using language like "income inequality"

What gave you the idea that I claim I'm not a socialist? I claim I'm not a Marxist or a Communist (although there was a time when I was one), but I certainly AM a socialist.

Like I said previously, your bitching only leads to one solution - INCOME EQUALITY - which is the equal redistribution of wealth by our government and guess what??? that is COMMUNISM..

Nonsense. First of all, income inequality is way too high. That doesn't mean that reducing it to zero is desirable. I doubt that it is. Secondly, the government doesn't need to directly redistribute income. All that's necessary is that it restore progressivity to the tax system, return to strict enforcement of labor rights, establish trade agreements with a view to boosting employment at home rather than saving manufacturers money by letting them hire virtual slave-labor abroad, and establish realistic immigration quotas and actually enforce them. The market will do the rest.

My point has been and always will be that supply and demand is the basis of capitalism.

Who is preventing you from being successful or inventing a product that could potentially be in demand???

Oh yeah - no one

These two statements are mutually exclusive. For "supply and demand" to be "the basis of capitalism" (which it's not, but leave that for later), then demand must be finite. If demand is finite, there is a limit to how many people can be very successful at meeting it.

Or to put it another way, at any given time the economy generates only so much wealth. The wealth that the economy generates, adjusted for maldistribution, is the total demand for more wealth production, since trade always involves exchanging wealth for wealth. (Maldistribution makes it so that not all wealth produced can be traded, but the amount produced is still an absolute ceiling.) Any wealth that I acquire in trade, because people buy my products, is wealth that you will not, because it has already been spent and cannot be used to buy yours.

This applies in the job market as well. Only so many jobs need doing. If I obtain one of those jobs, you will not. The economy is competitive, and unlimited opportunity does not exist.

 

[francoHFW]

Cons (angry whites) are very emotional (certainly not overly rational), love making liberals out to be the same....Like their con men heroes, their reaction to civil argument full of FACTS that ruin their talking point monologue, is bluster, anger, and insults.

We admire good rich people, are disapointed with and wish to help the greedy myopic ones reach their human potential lol.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious, Franco...

Do you purposely try to make your posts gibberish?

I'm also curious to know who the 12 people were that actually thought you posted something deserving of Rep? Do you post elsewhere on the board that I haven't seen and make posts that are comprehensible?