The liberal principle is that equal treatment isn’t fair. To paraphrase, everyone should be treated equally, but some more equally than others.
Regards,
Shodan
If I had to take a guess at the general conservative/republican view of this, I would say that the overwhelming majority of them have come to the conclusion that the left can safely be ignored when it comes to their accusations of racism/bigotry.
They do not have a reasonable definition. They do not apply their standards equally. They make the accusations in bad faith and for political power. They went after Bush, Romney, McCain.
This thread itself is evidence that the left’s definition of racism is everything that is not in lockstep with their beliefs and agenda.
An accusation of racism or bigotry from the left carries no weight.
Maybe you could explain the “necessary” part a little more clearly. Yes, taxation is necessary - and the most money can be obtained from people who have the most, would be least affected by paying it, and have benefited the most from the contributions of the rest of the people (including systematic upward wealth redistribution like we’ve had in recent decades. Why shouldn’t that be the case?
Tax regressiveness is not a new subject of discussion, btw - it has existed as long as taxation.
Whose life is affected more? The guy who has to sell one of his yachts, or the guy who can no longer buy life-saving medicine for his kids? What is your definition of “fair”? :dubious:
Only because they find it inconvenient and uncomfortable to address. If the response were “The accusation is mistaken because of [fill in facts] etc.” instead of “No, YOU’RE the real bigots!”, then the conservatives would have some ability to engage and fight ignorance. But you’re not doing that, are you?
First, define “governmental assistance”.
Does that include assistance to businesses, which benefits their owners?
For the sixth or maybe the six hundredth time, the liberal principle is that doing the same thing to different people in different circumstances very often isn’t equal treatment.
Let me try putting it this way: the liberal principle is that you’re not treating people equally by letting people start the footrace from six different positions, and then claiming that the reason the people who start nearest to the finish line almost always win the races isn’t due to inequality because everybody got the same chance to run fast.
If Bill Gates steps into McDonald’s and wants to buy a Big Mac, he should only have to pay the same price for it (say, $4) that Average Joe standing in line also has to pay. It wouldn’t be fair for the cashier to say, “Well, Mr. Gates, you’re a billionaire so this Big Mac is going to cost you $200.” That would be unequal treatment.
When it comes to taxation, though, the fairness has to take second priority to practicality. There is no way to effectively fund the nation’s budget if Bill Gates only paid 17% (or however much) tax like most Americans. I’m totally in favor of taxing the rich more heavily; I just think we should stop calling it “fair.” Just call it “unfair, but the right thing to do.”
What’s so wrong about calling it “unfair but necessary?” Is it that it’s bad PR, doesn’t sound like a good slogan?
As a conservative, why do you accept this? Why don’t you guys tell your elected representatives, “Listen guys, we like all the good stuff that you’re doing. But could you drop the bigotry? It serves no good purpose and being associated with it makes us all look bad.”
We could say it but they’re not going to listen to us; we’re Democrats and we don’t vote for them anyway. But if Republican voters told Republican politicians to knock off the bigotry, they’d pay attention. So why don’t you?
The point is that it isn’t even unfair.
I would say that you strongly implied it, yes.
Yes, your initial response to me, where you implied that I’m a racist for noting that the Republican party is awash in racism and bigotry, made it appear very strongly that you think there isn’t a problem with racism in your party. Also, the fact that you’re a member of that party.
Do you think I showed more or less bad faith than the post where you implied that I was a racist for noting the overwhelming prejudice of the Republican party?
I already did. Sam Stone asserted that Democrats are playing identity politics, and that that’s a bad thing, with a heavy implication that we’re the only ones doing it. I pointed out that, pretty much across the board, every time the Democrats are playing “identity politics,” its with a group that the Republicans have explicitly singled out and attacked as a matter of political policy. You implied that I was racist myself for making that observation. Which implies that you think there’s a different reason, other than the apalling bigotry of the Republican party, for the vast disparity in minority support for the two parties. I think asking what you think is the reason for that disparity is an entirely worthy question.
I mean, do you genuinely think that the Republican attacks on gay right through the '90s and early 2000’s had nothing to do with there being very, very few gay people who identify as Republicans? Do you think passing constitutional bans against gay marriage in states where it was already illegal was not “identity politics?” Do you think Trump’s not playing identity politics when he gets one of his rallies chanting, “Send her home,” about a Muslim congresswoman? Because when you call me racist for pointing that stuff out, it pretty strongly implies that you don’t think any of those things are true - that the lack of support for Republicans by minority groups doesn’t have anything to do with how Republicans have historically (and contemporaneously) treated those groups. If you don’t think there’s a link, then how do you explain the disparity of support? If you do think there’s a link, why did you get on my tits when I posted about it earlier?
You appear to be unfamiliar with our current tax policies.
Most of us live off of income. The income tax rate goes up to 37%.
Most wealthy people live off on investments. The capital gains tax rate goes up to 20%.
So what’s fair about wealthy people paying a tax rate that’s barely half of the tax rate people like you and I pay?
Let’s not talk about taxing wealthy people more heavily. Let’s just talk about taxing them at the same rate most people pay.
The way I think about progressive taxation is that the point isn’t to equally apportion the burden, but to equally apportion the suffering caused by the burden. Imagine if the government instituted a new $1,000 per year tax on all working adults. Billionaires and minimum wage workers would all suffer, but the suffering of the billionaire would be utterly negligible. Therefore, the tax isn’t fair. The same reasoning applies to flat taxes, generally.
It’s absolutely fair that Bob pays more if he earns that much more. He demonstrably is profiting more from society as it currently exists than John (for any number of reasons, not most of them “fair”). Society allows him to safely enjoy more creature comforts than John. Society also protects him from John, should John get the notion that maybe Bob’s life experience could be vastly enhanced by, say, getting hanged from the nearest lamp post and his riches divided equally amongst the misfortunates.
I mean, this isn’t overly complex, it isn’t even fucking new. Aristocrats of Ancient Greece/Rome actively *competed *against each other over who could make the most lavish public spending. It was even ultimately self-serving (because your gold isn’t worth tin when the Persians raze the city on account of you skimped on arming the militia, or didn’t placate the gods well enough).
ETA : @UnreconstructedMan : bingo.
Hmm, I don’t think I’ve heard them called *earned *and unearned income for quite some time. Did the IRS drop those terms?
At any rate, how is it fair to tax money you *worked *for at a higher rate than money you got by sitting on your ass?
I think you missed the part about “in bad faith”.
See above.
Read the OP again; it is an example of the sort of thing I mean. No matter what the conservative principle to be put forth, it was going to be met with accusations of bigotry, and I think we all knew that.
So no, I am not going to contact my Republican politicians and say “knock off that stuff about personal responsibility and equal treatment” because they aren’t bigoted. The accusations that they are, lack credibility.
It isn’t really possible to separate “the good stuff” that Republicans are doing, or trying to do, from “bigotry as defined by liberals”. I support, for instance, the death penalty. Many liberals would insist that this must be rooted in bigotry, because a third of those on death row are black. But I happen to know that black people commit about half the murders in the US, even though they make up only about 13% of the population. So the accusation that the DP is racist holds no water for me. I am certainly not going to contact my representatives and say “stop supporting the death penalty because it upsets me that liberals accuse me of racism”. I don’t care.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that accusations of racism are “usually” made in bad faith, but it’s hardly rare. And I can “usually” spot when they are.
‘All conservative values are based on bigotry, so I should contact my representatives and tell them to knock off the bigotry’ is not a worthwhile statement. Because no they’re not, so no I won’t.
Regards,
Shodan
It is both uncomfortable and inconvenient. That fact seems to actually be the underlying purpose of making the accusation in the first place.
Each specious accusation erodes credibility until there is none left. At which point the left is nothing more than chicken little or the boy who cried wolf.
The right can now simply ignore these accusations and use their own judgement, like they did with Steve King. Considering how Ilhan Omar skates, it appears the right’s standard is higher than the left’s.
Again, what is there to be said beyond the thread title? According to the left everything the right believes is racist. That being the case, why would they bother listening?
The more reflexive denialism you spout at us, the more strongly you confirm the point. Try an actual argument, please.
Perhaps you meant to respond to the other poster. I have been trying to explain to him that there are more ways to interpret “treating people equally”, but he insists on digressing into whether or not conservatives treat people equally in his conception of the phrase.
I pointed to two policies to compare them. The progressive tax and the flat tax. I said nothing of other taxes, my point was to illustrate something for him in a simple way, I think most people understood the intention.
The conservative conceives of equal treatment differently than the liberal, so to say that liberals can claim the mantle of the hallmark pleasantry “treat people equally” is very strange.
What was explained to you, before you began quoting commies, was that conservatives view fairness as arbitrary. “Fairness” is a rhetorical concept used by the left. Conservatives supposedly believe in equal treatment under the law.
Fairness is judged only by the indignant foot of the stomping teenager.
It isn’t even equal.
Very, very, VERY strong emphasis on the word “supposedly”. As I’m sure, e.g. every LGBT Doper left will be prompt to explain to you at length, possibly while disembowelling you.
Do conservatives oppose dropping your taxes to 20%? Flat tax proposals I’ve seen are less than that.