Are they all really planning to win the lottery and then be able to resent the top bracket?
Because the rich tell them it will?
The same applies to anything non-wealthy republicans think.
Because it will trickle down. The rich will re-invest, create jobs and opportunity and everyone will get richer!
It doesn’t really happen of course, but don’t let facts get in the way of Republican dogma.
I’ve been tickled down on. Can’t say I much like it.
You give a rich person a hundred dollars, he’ll put it in a bank and let it accrue interest, accomplishing next to nothing for the economy.
Give a poor person a hundred dollars, he’ll go right out and buy food, clothes, entertainment, or something. Right back into the economy. That seems obvious to me. The economy is stimulated by commerce. However anybody was convinced “No, look, you don’t need money. We get money, then we’ll use it, and hopefully you’ll get a small part of it as payment for shining my shoes” is beyond me.
When I hear ‘trickle down theory’ I always get the image of a 1920s-style Fat Cat Banker (à la Monopoly) standing on a balcony urinating down the neck of a poor person who is standing below.
And offering to sell him an umbrella…
Hadn’t thought of that. Though the phrase ‘Don’t piss down my neck and tell me it’s raining’ comes to mind.
For some conservative-type folks I’ve talked to, it seems to be the American Dream. In other words, they believe that someday they’re going to be rich enough to be taxed too much.
I’ve often thought that one way to make Healthcare reform attractive to that type would be to emphasize how many people have to stay at their jobs because they can’t get health insurance otherwise. At least some of these people might want to start their own business, but don’t want to go without health insurance while they build it. Present it as a possible barrier to the American Dream of starting that business that’s going to make them rich enough to pay too much taxes.
That could be true. Some poor people might not like “tax cuts for the poor” because they’d say, “What? I’m not poor! I’m just a millionaire in training.”
Like my brother says, “We’re called pee-ons for a reason!”
My dad is not super rich and doesn’t get taxed extra or anything. But one day he was ranting about having his tax dollars go to all these “socialist” programs and how there should be a flat tax. I pointed out to him that he is a VERY generous person and would give money to anyone, and often talks about how he has plenty to spare and how lucky he has been in life to have gotten so far without an education (he’s a retired Ford worker).
I asked him why, then, is he angry that he might be taxed a little more so more people - like the people in his family that he has already willingly helped out financially - can get more help?
He said he doesn’t want the government to force him to give money to others, he wants to do it on his own.
I don’t agree with the stance, but it did help me understand the Republican Agenda a little bit more.
He also pulled out the same rant some weeks later when the city announced it was considering doing a curbside recycling program. He said he didn’t want the government forcing him to recycle, he wants to do it on his own.
What a weird world we live in. I don’t live in Louisiana, but I think tax dollars should go towards helping them. I’m done with college, but want tax dollars supporting quality state universities. I am not part of a lot of groups that I think should benefit from government largess both for humanitarian reasons and because I think I benefit from a better society. This holds for non-monetary things as well. I don’t think I’ll ever face an improper wiretap or search, but I think the Exclusionary Rule should be sacrosanct. In fact, if I ever do run up against a Fourth Amendment issue, it’s more likely that it will be against my interest.
Why then is it surprising that some people think that taxing someone else is a wrong and should be opposed, especially if it is coupled with an ideology that favors small government and fewer programs?
This even fits with someone voting against their ostensible self interest. Lots of people with health care (and stable jobs) will still vote for UHC, even at the cost of raised taxes. That is, voting for something that is a detriment to the self while benefiting a third party/group. The opposite is as rational–an uninsured person voting against UHC for the benefit of a third party at an ostensible cost to themselves.
Because rich people hire plumbers.
A VP I worked for in Orange County was upper-middle class, but well-off enough that her husband could spend all day playing golf. She had a very poor opinion of workmen, including plumbers.
And? What’s your point? Did she have her interior decorator install the plumbing when she redid the bathroom/kitchen?
People keep saying that after unprecedented wealth creation in America over the past 20 years that didn’t really stop until 2007. I’ve always been baffled by that. I don’t get it, throughout the boom times rich venture capitalists were investing in job creation and whole new industries bloomed throughout the 90s and 00s and yet people continue to insist it doesn’t work that way.
Just an illustration of the attitude people with money have toward people of ‘lower status’.
Of course, but that’s neither here nor there regarding whether or not they hire them.
I think most people make fun of plumbers, but plumbers make decent money so shrugs let 'em laugh.
For one thing, a lot of conservatives who aren’t rich now hope to be so one day. For another, we think it’s unjust – simply by virtue of paying the same percentage in taxes, rich people pay a great deal more in dollars than poor people and we see no good reason other than class envy and confiscatory government as to why the rich should pay disproportionately. It’s an excuse by politicians to rake in more money to finance the programs they buy votes from the poor with.
And the biggie – the definition of rich keeps getting defined down as the government discovers more and more that there aren’t enough rich people after all, thus ever lowering the threshold by which they disproportionately take our money. (The average Joe gets up in the morning and goes to work for the government (federal, SS, Medicare/Medicaid, state, city, property, etc.) roughly six months of the year as it is, so it’s harder to tax him. But it can be done if they can convince him they will only raise taxes on other people, and then include him in that group later on.)
And then there’s the socialistic and income-redistribution aspect mentioned above.