Well, yeah, there are also people who think I’m a Marxist who hates America. There’s no need for me to adopt the dialog of the extreme right in order to win the ‘respect’ of people who live in a fantasy world, now is there John?
Are you willing to admit that the concept of the GOP funneling taxpayer’s money to the wealthy is pretty commonplace just now? Can you admit that without making obeisance to Republican talking points?
I can.
It’s GOOD to be free.
There may be, but I’m not one of those people.
I didn’t think we were talking about that, but no, there isn’t.
No. The GOP certainly are in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy, which is not the same thing at all. If I tax you less, I’m not giving you more of my money. I’m letting you keep more of yours.
I don’t know what Republican talking points you’re talking about. I’m simply saying that I find it frustrating that, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, we have people defending ignorance. I don’t care which side is doing it. I really don’t.
There are some of us who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. Is that so hard to believe?
Only if you feel that every dollar you ever earn is “yours” forever. That’s certainly a common position, but not a universal one. Some would argue that since that money was originally created out of thin air via the economic engine established by our laws and society, that you only have temporary ownership of it, at best. And as taxation is your “dues paying” to keep this society stable and well-functioning, it is not in any way “taking from you”, but just you paying your “fair share” (your definition of fair will obviously vary).
Put less abstractly, if cutting taxes on the rich (as only one example of policy that leads to increasing income gaps) causes us to spend less on food stamps or social welfare programs (or even pay our soldiers less), then that budget decision is pretty directly giving money to the rich at the expense of the poor.
Another line or argument that addresses the OP’s quote is that of extreme deregulation. One could make an argument that letting BP drill wherever they want with limited oversight and safety inspections causes BP stockholders and executives to get very rich at the cost of thousands of working-class people who now have to fight in court to rebuild their destroyed livelihoods.
Yeah, the actual existence of anti-GOP concepts must be strenuously denied at all times because those concepts lack perfect accuracy.
Anyone who admits that such concepts exists is necessarily defending ignorance?
Is that your take on the matter, John? It sure seems like it.
The OP did ask:
He got answered.
Now if you don’t like the answers, that’s a different debate.
Have at it, but don’t poison the well by calling those who admit the perception exists ‘ignorance defenders.’
If you cut taxes on the wealthy but don’t cut taxes on the non-wealthy, since money is fungible, that’s pretty much exactly equivalent from taking money from the non-wealthy and giving it to the wealthy. So lowering the marginal rate for the wealthy, while keeping total spending the same, means that the non-wealthy will have to pay more to make up the difference.
Now, you could make the argument that the wealthy deserve to have their taxes lowered, while the non-wealthy don’t. And I might agree with that if marginal rates on the wealthy were much much higher than on the non-wealthy.
But while that was true in the 40s and 50s and 60s, it’s not true today.
No it’s not.
Yes it is.
Eh. If you don’t like me calling BS on posters who claim that “the rich get rich by taking money from others”, that’s your problem. If that’s your idea of answering the OP, then you’re wrong, too.
Not necessarily.
You can borrow money.
You can cut spending.
You can sell federal assets.
You can privatize programs.
You can transfer federal programs to the states, and then let the states decide how they want to fund them.
It is, if you believe in the law of supply and demand, and that the government is completely ineffectual. Since these are common conservative dogmas, it follows mathematically from these premises that the only measure of the ability to purchase goods is the relative amount of cash you have versus everyone else. Therefore, lower taxes on one party is exactly the equivalent of higher taxes on everyone else (if you take as a given the conservative dogma that government spending does not contribute in a meaningful way to the economy.)
John, I agree with you and appreciate your view that the support for the quote in the OP, is more about grasping at straws to show that any knee-jerk comment on the opposition party is justified, and will be supported by other thinly strung arguments.
I will feel more justified in making my own ridiculous statements in the future, as that is considered the norm around here. :rolleyes:
As stated above, it’s not. The government can take a multitude of actions and does.
Yes, but what we’re doing is the first option, borrowing the money. The only problem with borrowing the money is that you have to repay the money you borrowed. And the way we repay the money we borrow is by taxes. And since we cut taxes for the rich, that means every else is going to have to pay a larger amount to repay the borrowing.
There is a certain amount of revenue raised by taxes. If the amount paid by Group A is reduced, then the percentage that Group A pays is smaller, which means the percentage paid by Group !A is larger.
I guess I don’t see the difference between passing a law to cut someone’s taxes by $X, and passing a law that keeps their taxes the same but also hands them $X in cash. To me both actions are exactly equivalent.
As stated above, it is.
Because the non-rich are the ones that actually earn it. The non-rich are the ones who build and invent and repair and so forth, while the rich take the credit and the money for the work that the non-rich do. The wealthy pretend that they are superior beings who deserve all the wealthy and power society has to offer, when in reality they are primarily parasitic. Nearly all the money of the rich wouldn’t be theirs in a fair system; most of them don’t contribute even as much as the average worker, much less thousands of times more.
If they didn’t earn it, they wouldn’t have it to give? How does a shop owner or a doctor or a lawyer or an author or an artist who makes $300,000 a year not earn that money?
So you’d’ve preferred the sound of crickets to a valid response to the OP?
Wilbo523 seemed genuinely ignorant. He deserved an answer, regardless of your finer sensibilities. I’m sorry we can’t all play by your version of PCspeak al the time, John, but sometimes you have to actually answer a question in order to fight ignorance.
You go ahead and explain to us all how unjust the perceptions of people are about Republicans favoring the wealthy over all others though.
It might make you feel better.
Might I recommend some sort of straw man as an argumentative aid? It’s worked before.
Excellent question, which only one poster (not Squink) has attempted to answer. If you want to call that response an answer.
There so much faulty about the above paragraph that I not sure where to start.
Let me make sure that I understand your premises:
-
The non-rich are the ones that invent, produce, repair and so forth and they have for the most part never been compensated for their contributions.
-
The rich that provide capital for growth, research, invention, are not entitled to a return on their capital. They should fund these types of activities for the betterment of all people. They should take all the risks of loss of their capital, but not be entitled to the returns on their invested capital.
-
In a fair system, the rich would contribute capital and it would be shared equally by everybody, even those that got compensated fairly for their labor.
Thanks, I got it. I can’t wait to see everybody lining up to contribute and take risks in this society of yours.
More faulty logic. You assume that when Group A’s taxes are lower that Group !A’s (why not group B?) taxes will go up. %'s don’t mean anything, either the absolute amount of Group!A’s taxes go up or they don’t. For Group !A’s taxes to go up, then additional legislation has to be passed, this is a separate legislative decision, just as cutting spending could be a decision. So to say that when Group A’s taxes get lowered that Group !A’s automatically go up is faulty logic.
What’s the difference between giving someone a tax cut of $X, and handing them a government check for $X?