OK. I want to discuss the merits of this article, which means you have to actually read it to participate. This guy’s thoughts represent the “Republican Party That I Used To Know”. I align myself along somewhat conservative lines (not to be confused with the current Republican Party) and this guy’s article really stings my wheelhouse.
THIS is what I want in a conservative should I vote that way (I voted for Obama in the last election). What do you guys think about this article? The fact that it appears in a conservative publication is interesting…so please, pick it apart and tell me what I am agreeing with is somehow nonsense, woo, bullshit, or whatever.
I find it very thoughtful and well-written.
Its essentially a diatribe against how wealth in this country has created an elite class of citizen that has more or less “seceded” from regular American society.
I thought it was well written and describes much of what I agree is one of the the underlying problems with the economic structure of this country - and maybe other countries as well.
I’m surprised to see it appear in a conservative magazine. Are conservatives wondering what happened to their party? It appears a few are, but it remains to be seen if enough are to make any difference at the voting booths.
Although I wonder if the Democrats would even have the wherewithal to correct the overreaching power of the wealthy if they had power of both houses and the Presidency? How do we correct a system that has become so unbalanced? I am not convinced either party has the best interests of the middle class at heart - just that the democrats might help more.
Also, “stings my wheelhouse”? This is a phrase I have never heard before.
The people in that category are a tiny minority. If a significant majority of Americans want to do something about it, they can easily vote for policies that will.
The article was TLDR. Can the OP summarize the key points and what policies he or the article suggest we put in place to address this “problem”?
The author doesn’t really make suggestions, just complaints, though from that you can make some assumptions about what he would recommend.
Half the deficit is due to lowered taxes.
The wealthy are only paying 15% taxes rather than 30% by earning their income via capital gains.
Outsourcing creates wealthy people who just consider the US to be one more market for exploitation, rather than their own country to care about the welfare of.
Overall, he seems to be arguing that we need to tax the rich and shut down free trade.
No they can’t. The politicians vote according to who pays them, not who votes for them. If a million people march on Washington demanding change, they are outvoted by one guy with a ten million dollar check.
The real story is now The Rich con gullible working class Americans into voting Republican using religion and myths about “job creators” who are solely motivated by corporate tax cuts.
Warren Buffett, the greatest capitalist in US history, said he was never motivated to invest in a business due to tax cuts.
Lowered taxes on everyone, right? How much of the deficit is due to lower taxes on “the rich”?
I’d have no problem taxing long term capital gains at the standard rate, as long as we index for inflation.
It’s a global market.
There’s no political will in either party to raise taxes enough to affect the situation decried in the article, but I don’t think that raising taxes as discussed by Obama would hurt the economy much, if at all. “Shut down” free trade is total non-starter, and would be terrible for the country. Any economist will tell you that.
I didn’t think it was very conservative at all. It struck me as a more articulate and long-winded version of what you’d hear from a stereotypical Occupy Wall Street protester.
And John, I don’t think you’ve been given a very accurate summary of the article. The author doesn’t really suggest anything; certainly not shutting down free trade. It’s more about how things got to this point (where the super-rich have an inordinate amount of influence on policy etc. etc.).
Explain this please. I think you’re suggesting that capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate in times of 0% inflation, and at a lower rate in times of > 0% inflation right?
If I understand your suggestion correctly, why limit that to capital gains? Why shouldn’t an average person’s taxes go down in times of inflation, but a capitalist’s taxes should?
Yes, exactly, and no, my OP doesn’t really ask for solutions only to verify or discredit the veracity of the article, which I still maintain is well-written.
The article’s okay - I just don’t see that the problem is particularly new. There were self-centered profiteers during the Civil War and World Wars, after all. I suppose the best cure is somebody like Bill Gates who can challenge (indeed, shame) other billionaires into socially-responsible and forward-looking investments and donations.
If I hold a stock for 10 years and then sell it, I should only pay tax on the gain after being adjusted for inflation. Anything held for a year or under, which includes wages, is taxed irrespective of inflation.
If you want to index everything for inflation, that’s fine with me. But it becomes very complicated, and as long as inflation is low, it doesn’t make that much difference.
What’s so wrong with the thrust of the article, which is to say: “Hey Republicans, remember what you stand for” and “yes, taxation of the very rich should be different from the rest of us”?
The point of the article was the the super rich are so insulated from the rest of society, that they no longer have the best interests of the country at heart, but rather view the rest of society in abstract as a drain on their resources (taxes) for which they receive no benefit, and as purses to be raided (oursourcing, cuts in public services).
The actions of the GOP, when thus viewed, make sense.