It's all about taxes, isn't it?

Great Debates
41

Again, folks like me don’t object to paying taxes. We just want to stop the government from taking so much of our money. We are especially upset that the government wastes so much of it on worthless and counterproductive programs, but that kind of leads us in a different direction. Even if the government had 100% efficiency, I’d still be opposed to high tax rates.

And why should they pony up to pay for all these things you think are so great? I’m unclear as to why the fact that they live in a certain geographical area gives people like you the right to take their money to spend as you like. Yes, people should contribute to a government that helps keep the peace and provides a stable judicial system. It doesn’t logically follow that they are morally obligated to pay for whatever silly social programs anyone can think up.

No, the “rich” (however you define them) should pay taxes just like everyone else. They shouldn’t be singled out for punitive tax rates, though. Who cares if they wouldn’t miss the money (an arguable point)? It’s their money. They earned it. If you want to spend the time starting a business, risking your money, spending twelve to fourteen hours a day working at it, and earn money so you can give your money to the government, go ahead. Others would prefer to do these things so they can live the good life, as they define it. There is nothing wrong with that.

Of course not. He’s a liberal Democrat. And, to be honest, I prefer him over McCain.

Then he’s either ignorant or engaging in hyperbole.

Yes, they are too high. As far as taxes I wouldn’t object to, I’m fine with the gas tax. It’s essentially a user fee to pay for road building. The money collected shouldn’t go to pay for public transportation, though. As far as tax money collected by the feds, I think that it’s fine to collect enough to fund a military that can defend us if we are threatened. We also need a federal judiciary. As far as money for other federal agencies, I can’t think of anything else now that I’d miss too much if it disappeared. On the state and local level, of course, there is a need for more government services. But I assume you want to keep this focused on the feds.

42

Had a GOP congress and Senate for nearly 8 years and yet you will somehow blame the dems for the fiscal ignorance of the GOP. You can not cut enough programs to compensate for a 10 to 12 billion a month war.
We will never be able to grow our way out of anything. Offshoring our industries and jobs killed that. We peeled another 86,000 jobs last month. Our tax base shrinks with every months statements. McCain has no plans to cut the war or war spending. If he gets in it will just get worse and worse. Where does it end.?

43

It doesn’ have to be greed driving high income people to want lower taxes. If you’re talking about a tax liability differnce of, say, 100K a year, it’s not too crazy to think that you could do more good for the country than the government can. Rich people give a lot of money away, in general.

Furthermore, even if you planned to spend that money on ivory back-scratchers and such, it’s not a totally foolish idea to think that consumption and investment by private individuals is better than the same for the government.

Taxes are a big part of the issue, but I think quite a few business types like more free trade, so I’d throw that in there too.

44

Only since Lawrence… :wink:

45

Apparently, this rule can be broken for Austrian bodybuilder superstars, in California.

46

The taxes, he wants to pump clap them up!

47

Not the first time. Which is why he’s rightly been called a RINO since his first run. Now he’s just a liar.

48

No, he is trying to get the state government to work, and trying to be practical, and not a fanatic anti-tax we’ll hold our breaths until we turn blue so we’ll get our way moron - like the Republicans in the legislature. I suppose him trying to do right by the state and facing reality does make him a RINO these days.

49

Given the growth of income of the top percentile, a $100K a year tax increase would hardly be notices.
From here Warning: pdf

Notice the difference in economic growth during the Clinton and Bush years - especially today. Might this be the result of the bottom 99% getting such a small share of the increased pie that they can’t afford to buy anything, ruining demand, and ruining the economy. Up to now this has been made up by borrowing, but the shit has now hit the fan.

Given this share of growth by the top 1%, if your hypothesis about them spending the money more effectively were true, we’d now be living in paradise. See paradise? If you were in the top 1% you would. If you are not, then supporting the Republicans is just screwing yourself.

You might have seen income growth rates for rich and poor in Democratic and Republican years. The growth rate was higher for Democratic years - even for the rich. So, if you want growth, I’d advise you to vote for Obama.

50

Last year the Republicans in the legislature warned that the budget was out of whack. They precisely predicted the mess we’re in right now.

Look at this image and tell me if there’s a revenue problem or a spending problem.

51

Well, here’s where the American Dream suckers people in to voting against their own interests—in a nutshell, this is the way the Republican Party survives. I agree with the notion that people “aspire to get out of” poverty, and most do, briefly but temporarily. The vast majority of lower-middle class Americans do NOT break through to real wealth, on anything like a permanent basis, although many if not most have that ambition and sometimes the illusion that they’ve cracked through a barrier. Most American dreamers will maintain that the Dream is what allows them to keep slogging on, and makes their lives worthwhile, even if nothing much changes economically.

But some of them (most I would argue), despite the Dream, make no progress. Maybe a farm worker becomes a supervisor over a forty year career, maybe a steel worker becomes a foreman, but you know and I know that isn’t the sort of real wealth that would justify voting for major tax cuts for the super-wealthy.

The worst part is that some of them do even worse—people who break down physically or mentally, and can no longer work even a low-paying job any more. People who see a short cut through poverty by committing crimes, or who find relief in the needle, or people who have the misfortune to grow up in the home of someone who has gone down one of these paths. These people’s lives grow worse, not better, over time, despite what they may dream and aspire to.

To look out for one’s own narrow needs is to create longstanding problems for society as a whole. I oppose funneling free money to lazy deadbeats, as does virtually everyone of every political stripe I can imagine, but there have to be ways that social programs can help people reclaim their lost dreams, and it’s our collective responsibility to find those ways and make them work, instead of rolling up our car windows as we drive on state-built freeways over the slums and letting the lower classes fend for themselves.

You want to reject this social program in favor of that plan? I’ll listen, and maybe I’ll argue with you for a more expensive social policy, and maybe we’ll work out a decent compromise. But if you’re telling me that you oppose on principle the concept of social responsibility, and so you reject every candidate who has ideas that you fear might cost you a few dollars in favor of one who promises (but doesn’t often deliver) a plan that costs you a few less, I’ll call that simple selfishness, which I have very little respect for.

Does it? The people Obama is targeting for a tax increase aren’t being “hurt” by the loss of a few extra dollars. I’m well below the class Obama’s proposing a tax increase for, but let’s say my tax bill next year went up by five hundred bucks—would that “hurt”? No, it wouldn’t. It might mean that I could stay only five nights instead of seven nights in a luxury hotel for my vacation, or maybe I’d get a car without a sunroof, which are things I might resent (if I were the resentful type) but they in no way “hurt” me—not for a second, not even a little bit.

The difference is that we’ve gotten used to expressing resentment—the government is taking my money away from me! But it’s not your money—you’re getting something back for having a strong federal government, and it’s not just the armed forces and federal highways. You get to live in a free and open society (at least in theory, it’s free and open) with a functioning economy, and that allows you to earn “your” money. You accept paying federal taxes for programs you approve of, and you’re just whining about those programs who use you can’t feel the direct benefit of, but they do you good anyway.

If you want to discuss specific wasteful programs, I’m with you there. Let’s talk about them—specifically. But let’s don’t walk away from our social responsibilities on principle, because the only principle I see in that is the principle of self-interest.

52

“…survives,”? More like thrives. 7 of the last 10 presidential elections were won by Republicans…so you believe a democratically-driven country is wrong 70% of the time?

53

I’m really glad for this thread, because it’s one of my biggest pet peeves. I’m not talking about the desire for fiscal responisbility, balanced budgets, and lower taxes - these are things I can get behind. What frustrates me, though, is the perception that the GOP is the defender of this maxim.

Republicans are the party of small government and low taxes? Ha, I say! Poppycock! Deficits are huge under Bush, just as they were under Reagan. And, as for taxes…

This PDF, and this website both provide information on income tax rates through the 20th century. If popular wisdom was factually accurate, we should expect to see stark contrasts between GOP and Democratic administrations. But we don’t.

Admittedly, I do see a sharp increase in the 1930s, under FDR. But that rate didn’t drop dramatically when Eisenhower became President for 8 years in the 1950’s - instead, the rate went even higher! It came down again in the late 1960s, when a “librul”, LBJ, was in the White House. There wasn’t another significant drop until the mid-1980’s (what happened under Nixon or Ford, hmm?), so Reagan did follow the party line (although there are some who would disagree with that assessment; at the least, spending went dramatically up during his time in office). But over the last two decades, despite minor fluctuations, we don’t see a distinct disparity between a Clinton administration and a Bush administration (yes, Bush did lower taxes, but at what cost? He’s also spending money at a record clip, and even McCain once opposed his tax cuts.)

If it was so true that Republicans were “small government tax-cutters” and Democrats were “tax and spenders”, I think the data would reflect that. This meme, though, is ancient history, and simply doesn’t reflect the reality of the last several decades.

54

“…ludicrously wealthy,”? $600k/yr isn’t ludicrously wealthy, unless you compare it to someone making $20k/yr. For someone like me, $600k/yr is something to aspire to, but not ludicrous. Not only that, but since when does the possession of wealth dictate that others have a right to it? Is it because it is perceived as “unfair” that Joe A makes $600k/yr for his 40-50hrs/wk and Joe B makes $20k/yr for the same amount of labor? If so, that is a misconception, or a downright communist line of thinking. Should a doctor make the same wage as a janitor? Or should a janitor make the same wage as a doctor? If you say “yes” then you have a serious lack of grasp of reality. Additionally, there is “perceived value” at work here. As a technician who could design wireless healthcare networks, I was valuable; as a mentor and trainer who can bring up other technicians to design those networks, and then manage their schedules and projects, I’m perceived as being worth more. Thus, I get paid more now, approximately 40% more, than I did as a technician. I invested my own time, money, and energy to get there, and I’m reaping the rewards. I don’t mind a certain percentage of my income being used to pay for infrastructure and necessary services, and possibly some educational opportunities. What I oppose is paying an increased percentage of my income, just because I’m making more now.

55

This analysis is useless without studying the makeup of the congress at the time. The president has little, if any, say over taxes. I suspect you’ll find the congressional makeup to be the telling factor in these cases.

56

So if the party in the White House has “little, if any, say over taxes”, then why vote for the President based on the tax issue, which is the subject of this thread? Why not vote for your congressional representative based on taxes, and vote for the President based on his social agenda? That may be how you vote, but it’s not the argument being made.

I, for one, don’t agree with your premise. The president can veto a spending bill, can submit a budget to congress, and can lobby for the fiscal agenda he wants. To say he has little, if any, say over taxes is to ignore the role of the Executive branch in law making.

57

In the interests of being an honest debater, I did find this website, which shows the degree to which Presidents had political control over congress. Looking at it, I don’t really see a correlation with taxes. Reagan never had control over the House (where budgets are originated), but did manage to lower taxes. LBJ had 100% control over both houses of congress, but also lowered taxes in the late 60’s despite Democratic dominance. Unless you want to provide a different analysis, I don’t really see your point.

58

In the last ten elections? Yes, they were wrong more than 70% of the time. In fact, I’d argue that the most competent candidate hasn’t even gotten the nomination more than four or five times in all of US history.

Does this mean that I don’t believe in democratic elections, or something, now? Voters are too easily bamboozled, but we haven’t figured out a better system yet.

59

Interesting analysis there, but it only addresses simple majorities. I’ve been digging but can’t find anything that addresses the actual percentages. I agree that the president has the ability to introduce initiatives and veto legislation, but often the president’s hands are tied by the lack of a line-item veto, or because the majority in the House or Senate is insufficient to override the minority’s opposition.

60

Would you at least agree that (for whatever complicated reason) a Republican president doesn’t necessarily mean lowered taxes and smaller government, and a Democratic president doesn’t necessarily mean a hudge increase in the tax rate, which was my original point?