Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[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.

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).

Let's see, I used the Census Bureau, the Dept of Labor, the CBO and the IRS. They are all facts.
You have NOT produced anything but talking points and it's the same BS you folks always say without backing it up with anything.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

So basically you believe the government and those who work and make money should be responsible for your lazy ass??

You don't even understand socialism and your post proves that..

You just want free shit and you feel you shouldn't have to earn that free shit because you're entitled to it because others have more than you do.

Using your logic a homeless fool has the right to break into your home and steal your shit because they have nothing.

Make me a sandwich motherfucker... I'm not rich I'm poor..

 

[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).

Let's see, I used the Census Bureau, the Dept of Labor, the CBO and the IRS. They are all facts.
You have NOT produced anything but talking points and it's the same BS you folks always say without backing it up with anything.

Really facts??

Why don't you do some research on how inaccurate the CBO actually is..

The government numbers are correct about 10% of the time...

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Only a fagot such as yourself would assert something so racist..

Typical progressive racism...

BTW, I'm Sicilian...

 

[kiwiman127]

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).

Let's see, I used the Census Bureau, the Dept of Labor, the CBO and the IRS. They are all facts.
You have NOT produced anything but talking points and it's the same BS you folks always say without backing it up with anything.

Really facts??

Why don't you do some research on how inaccurate the CBO actually is..

The government numbers are correct about 10% of the time...

Whoa!!! You got me there!

You just can't refute the facts can you?

I also noted that you keep on calling those who bring up income inequality as socialist,,,when then I guess a majority of Amwericans are socialist.


The Hill Poll: Fears about inequality in income grow
Two-thirds of likely voters say the American middle class is shrinking, and 55 percent believe income inequality has become a big problem for the country, according to this week’s The Hill Poll.
The Hill Poll: Fears about inequality in income grow - TheHill.com

Six in 10 Support Policies Addressing Income Inequality
Six in 10 Americans say the federal government should pursue policies to reduce the gap between the wealthy and less-well-off Americans, although fewer express support for the Occupy Wall Street movement that’s been protesting U.S. income inequality.
Sixty-one percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll think the wealth gap is larger than it’s been historically. And despite longstanding public concerns about activist government, six in 10 also say the federal government should seek to reduce that differential.
Six in 10 Support Policies Addressing Income Inequality - ABC News

2011: The Year that Income Inequality Captured the Public’s Attention
The year 2011 will be remembered as the year when the idea of income inequality migrated from seminar rooms in colleges and think tanks to Zuccotti Park and main streets across America. According to a CBS/New York Times poll, at the end of 2011, two thirds of Americans agreed the nation had too much inequality. The Congressional Budget Office reported that after-tax income for the top 1 percent had more than tripled since 1979 while that of the bottom 80 percent increased by only one-third.
2011: The Year that Income Inequality Captured the Public

 

[Skull Pilot]

As am I.

Are you willing to cut spending to Clinton levels as well because you can't have one without the other.

No.

I am willing to cut spending but not all the way down to Clinton levels. The last budget Clinton submitted was for $1.9 trillion dollars. Under our current tax rates we took in approximately $2.3 trillion last year.

Furthermore, any cutting of spending should be done incrementally over a period of time.

We weren't engaged in a war either so if you don't want to cut spending you are in favor of higher deficits and more debt.

As i said you can't have one without the other and expect to make any headway in cleaning up the financial fuck fest that out lackadaisical leaders and reprehensible representatives got us into.

 

[Skull Pilot]

As am I.

Are you willing to cut spending to Clinton levels as well because you can't have one without the other.

I am perfectly willing to reapportion spending to balance the budget. We can start with savings from being in Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years

Fine with me. We should have never been in either country anyway. In fact let's decrease our military footprint all over the world. We are spending our money providing defense for other people. We should be saving that money and spending it here at home.

 

[Billy000]

President Barack Obama’s plan to make the tax code more “fair” by permanently raising taxes, on the top 1% by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Yet we have a Government that over spends more than a 1 trillion every year.

Bringing in 1.5 trillion over a 10 year period, is not going to help at all to bring down the spending in Washington.

Our Government brings in a little over 2.2 trillion every year and only 53% pay taxes.
2 trillion is more than enough for our government yet they spend 1 trillion more.

When does the growth stop? Each and every year government has gotten bigger and bigger and borrowed more and more.
Government has grown to an unsustainable amount and needs to be cut back.
They need to spend what they bring in and not borrow any more until we get our deficit down.

Raising taxes on the rich is not going to remedy the problem.

But the other reason why the deficit is so large is because there isn't enough revenue. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point. What we need to do is stop government spending and raise taxes. Not just on the rich but the lower brackets as well.

 

[Billy000]

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.

well how nice of you to decide they aren't PAYING ENOUGH. why don't you get a gang together and go stick up them up, rob them of their monies and distribute it as you see fit.

I am so sick of hearing that tired conservative thinking. It really pisses me off. Did you not see my OP?

Nothing seeps in, does it?

 

[rdean]

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

Republicans see super wealthy people as a type of "demi-god". They deserve special privileged and are better than average people so the same rules and laws don't apply. They always got their money by working hard and playing by the rules.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Republicans see super wealthy people as a type of "demi-god". They deserve special privileged and are better than average people so the same rules and laws don't apply. They always got their money by working hard and playing by the rules.

You don't believe people should be looted of most of what they own, so that means you believe they are "demi-gods?"

What "special privileges" do Republicans want to give the wealthy, not being robbed?

If you can show someone broke the rules, then report them to the authorities.

 

[bripat9643]

well how nice of you to decide they aren't PAYING ENOUGH. why don't you get a gang together and go stick up them up, rob them of their monies and distribute it as you see fit.

I am so sick of hearing that tired conservative thinking. It really pisses me off. Did you not see my OP?

Nothing seeps in, does it?

What's "tired" about it, the fact that it annoys thugs like you?

No one is fooled by the "fair share" crap. We all know that's code for "loot the wealthy." It's the battle cry of parasite. They all think they are entitled to their "fair share" of what someone else earned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If you raise taxes on the poor, they will do the same thing the rich do when their taxes are raised or threatened to be raised:

They will vote for politicians who will cut their taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

If you raise taxes on the poor, they will do the same thing the rich do when their taxes are raised or threatened to be raised:

They will vote for politicians who will cut their taxes.

All you're saying is that it's inevitable that democracy will devolve into a mob that loots the productive members of society until it collapses.

Not a pretty picture.

 

[DiamondDave]

President Barack Obama’s plan to make the tax code more “fair” by permanently raising taxes, on the top 1% by $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Yet we have a Government that over spends more than a 1 trillion every year.

Bringing in 1.5 trillion over a 10 year period, is not going to help at all to bring down the spending in Washington.

Our Government brings in a little over 2.2 trillion every year and only 53% pay taxes.
2 trillion is more than enough for our government yet they spend 1 trillion more.

When does the growth stop? Each and every year government has gotten bigger and bigger and borrowed more and more.
Government has grown to an unsustainable amount and needs to be cut back.
They need to spend what they bring in and not borrow any more until we get our deficit down.

Raising taxes on the rich is not going to remedy the problem.

But the other reason why the deficit is so large is because there isn't enough revenue. Tax rates for the wealthy are at their lowest point. What we need to do is stop government spending and raise taxes. Not just on the rich but the lower brackets as well.

There is an UNGODLY amount of revenue.... It is a goddamn spending problem...

It's like telling a person making 500K a year, with 5.5MIL in debt, that he is not making enough money or that he's a low earner and needs to make more... No.. The stupid motherfucker needs to live within his means... and this stupid motherfucking government needs to spend within it's means

 

[Political Junky]

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

they do asswipe. but, I could bring it to your attention that 50% of Americans pay ZERO,, that's the group that really doesn't pay a "fair share" or any share for that matter..

Um, no, 47% do not pay FEDERAL taxes. Get your facts straight or don't bother trying.

He can only spout that talking point.

 

[Dragon]

There is an UNGODLY amount of revenue.... It is a goddamn spending problem...

Tell you what. Let's start on the spending side, and let's start with the Defense Department. As was suggested above, close down most of our foreign bases, end our entangling alliances, bring our troops home, redefine the military's mission as defense of the United States rather than projecting American power abroad, and cut it to a size appropriate for that mission. Can we agree on that?

While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry and other examples of corporate welfare. Can we agree there, too?

Oh, and foreign aid, especially in the form of military hardware. Can we agree to deep-six most of that spending?

Those are the only parts of the federal budget that I would agree need to be cut. Oh, wait -- legalize drugs and release nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison (and in state prisons, too). That would save money on law enforcement and the penal system.

Most other parts of the federal budget I would not agree to cut, and some I would want to actually expand, most notably spending on infrastructure repair and education. But the above are cuts I would like to see happen. The military cut alone would represent a huge savings. But would it be enough to balance the budget?

Frankly, I'm skeptical. I'm especially skeptical that it would be enough to balance the budget if we're also to expand spending in certain areas where it's really badly needed. I suspect we're eventually going to need to raise taxes, at least by putting them back to Clinton-era levels.

 

[DiamondDave]

There is an UNGODLY amount of revenue.... It is a goddamn spending problem...

Tell you what. Let's start on the spending side, and let's start with the Defense Department. As was suggested above, close down most of our foreign bases, end our entangling alliances, bring our troops home, redefine the military's mission as defense of the United States rather than projecting American power abroad, and cut it to a size appropriate for that mission. Can we agree on that?

While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry and other examples of corporate welfare. Can we agree there, too?

Oh, and foreign aid, especially in the form of military hardware. Can we agree to deep-six most of that spending?

Those are the only parts of the federal budget that I would agree need to be cut. Oh, wait -- legalize drugs and release nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison (and in state prisons, too). That would save money on law enforcement and the penal system.

Most other parts of the federal budget I would not agree to cut, and some I would want to actually expand, most notably spending on infrastructure repair and education. But the above are cuts I would like to see happen. The military cut alone would represent a huge savings. But would it be enough to balance the budget?

Frankly, I'm skeptical. I'm especially skeptical that it would be enough to balance the budget if we're also to expand spending in certain areas where it's really badly needed. I suspect we're eventually going to need to raise taxes, at least by putting them back to Clinton-era levels.

Fuck you you little socialist.. you only pick and choose things that don't contribute to your socialist agenda... fuck you and your wealth redistribution entitlement programs.... THOSE should be the first things cut

Yes.. foreign aid when we have budget problems should be eliminated.. defense should be cut, especially contract payments of ones not fulfilling their obligations, over the top spending etc BUT DEFENSE IS ACTUALLY A CHARGE OF THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, your fucking socialist entitlements are NOT

Scrap the whole tax code.. simplify it, and make sure each and every citizen who earns even 1 single dollar in income has a stake in the federal income tax game... funny, maybe little entitlement junkie types would be a bit more against extreme spending if they did have a stake in the game instead of having the other half of the population foot the bill for them

Take all the drugs, tons of them.. lace them with poison to lethal levels.. and leave them in the middle of crackville....

 

[DiamondDave]

they do asswipe. but, I could bring it to your attention that 50% of Americans pay ZERO,, that's the group that really doesn't pay a "fair share" or any share for that matter..

Um, no, 47% do not pay FEDERAL taxes. Get your facts straight or don't bother trying.

He can only spout that talking point.

It's a powerful and true point.. which shows the fucked up situation of our taxation system

 

[Oddball]

While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry .....

Which subsidies?


Name 'em.