Why middle class support for Republicans?

[msmith537]

@cosmosdan

That’s twice I’ve heard that the rich owe something to the less fortunate. I’d rather see a company that did things like profit sharing for it’s employees or helped the community it was in with schools and such, but that’s a moral choice rather than a debt.

Companies exist to generate wealth through selling products or services. While it’s nice that they sometimes give money to charities, I don’t believe that is their purpose nor should it be. I don’t want my schools and police and roads brought to me through the benevolance of the General Dynamics Corporation. That is the role of government.

@cosmosdan

If I sell a widget for $10 and it turns out I sell 5,000,000 widgets I’m a rich guy. I don’t owe any additional something to anyone because they made a choice to buy my widget. They got what they paid for. I could agree there is a moral imperative to help the less fortunate but that’s the development of the individual and volition.

Yes, this is the idealized fantasy scenario that the middle class Republican supporters cling to. That they will someday get rich by being clever entrepreneurs and inventors and by the sweat of their brow become millionare business owners. Or, failing that, they will eventually be successful by climbing to the top of the corporate ladder and become a Senior Vice President or something making $300 K a year.

That SHOULD be the way people get rich (and through wise investing), however it seems to me that those more egalitarian paths are becoming cut off to the middle class. We are rapidly creating a “class” system where the super wealthy are those people who were fortunate enough to go to the right schools and land the right jobs in investment banks and venture capital firms. Last year Goldman Sach’s average bonus was around $600,000 (although the multimillion dollar bonuses of the managing directors tends to skew these numbers). Financial services makes up 5% of the jobs yet 20% of the salaries in NYC.

Are these people earning so much money because they are providing that much value, or are they earning so much because they work where the money is?

When all that money congregates in one place, it becomes like a poker game where a few players own most of the pot. Everyone else (ie middle class America) is forced to borrow from them in order to play for a chance to win. As long as their credit is good and the banks are willing to lend, everything is fine. If the banks aren’t willing to lend for some reason, then the game stops.

@cosmosdan

Perhaps I’m just nitpicking terminology here but I do object to the concept that rich people *owe * something to the less fortunate. If we can show that a society works better with a progressive tax system then that’s fine. That’s evidence with which to make a reasoned choice. btw in a flat tax system the rich pay the same percentage and still more taxes for obvious reasons. The objection for many folks is not paying more in taxes, they expect to. It’s paying a higher percentage while others pay nothing.

It has always been my understanding that we use a progressive tax system not because the wealthy “owe” more than the poor, but because the same percent tax burden for a poor person is a much greater hardship. For someone making $20,000 a year, 10% might be the difference between eating and making those car repairs.

I don’t know if it is necessarily “fair”. Maybe higher taxes on luxury items or no tax on essentials like food or clothing would be better.

@welby

During my times of distress, I never took advantage of any social program. That is, I was never on unemployment,

No offense, but if you’re showering in a fountain and don’t collect unemployment, that doesn’t make you noble. It makes you a dumbass.

Unemployement insurance is designed to be a TEMPORARY safety net so that you don’t immediately lose your home or ability to buy food if you lose your job. It allows you to continue your job search, which is difficult enough without not having a phone, address or clean clothes to wear to an interview.

It should not be confused with welfare.

[Shodan]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Out of morbid curiosity, how do you justify Reagan’s tax increases of 1982 and 1984 (just to pick two) and how do you explain their deficit-reducing effects?

So you believe the federal budget deficit went down in 1982 and 1984? Could you please provide a cite?

Regards,
Shodan

[welby]

@msmith537

No offense, but if you’re showering in a fountain and don’t collect unemployment, that doesn’t make you noble. It makes you a dumbass.

Unemployement insurance is designed to be a TEMPORARY safety net so that you don’t immediately lose your home or ability to buy food if you lose your job. It allows you to continue your job search, which is difficult enough without not having a phone, address or clean clothes to wear to an interview.

It should not be confused with welfare.

No offense taken, but you must eligible to collect said money in order to make use of the safety net. I couldn’t. I’m well aware of the difficulty of getting a job without a permanent address. As I said above, I didn’t mean to impugn the sanctity of unemployment insurance, but lumped it in with a host of other things in order to show that I recovered from my problems myself. Thanks for your input.

As for the idealized scenario, I’m a product of it in a more roundabout way, but I’m here and I’m succeeding. It takes a lot of hard work, but it can be done.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Shodan

So you believe the federal budget deficit went down in 1982 and 1984? Could you please provide a cite?

Regards,
Shodan

First, that is a misstatement of what I said, which I presume is intentional. Of course, what I said is that Reagan’s tax increases had a deficit-reducing effect. Here’s a cite for you:

Front page | U.S. Department of the Treasury

The document is called “Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills.” It was produced by the Department of the Treasury in September, 2006. If you turn to page 17, you will see “Table 2. Revenue Effects of Major Bills Enacted Since 1968.”

Reagan’s tax cut of 1981 had a four year average impact of REDUCING revenue by 13.3%. That’s bad.

His tax increase of 1982 had a four year average impact if INCREASING revenue by 5.7%. His tax increase of 1984 had a four year average impact of INCREASING revenue by 2.1%. Those are good.

Now, you have your cite. I expect a reply to my initial question to you. Again, given your (completely nonsensical) rationalizations and handwavings about the positive effect of Clinton’s tax program on the economy, how do you justify Reagan’s tax increases and explain their impact on revenues?

[XT]

@Hentor the Barbarian

If there’s no infrastructure, what are the wealthy going to do - eat their statements? I think BwanaBob’s analogy is pretty apt, but without going to the doomsday scenario, just answer who has more invested in America staying strong, a temp or the owner of the company?

Which question do you want answered first here? What are the wealthy going to eat? Well, in theory at least, The Wealthy™ are going to be in a better position to buy whatever food is available than you and I are.

Who has more invested in America staying strong? Probably the owner of a company than an individual temp simply because he has more to lose…the temp could, in theory just find another temp position.

Again however your attempt to draw a comparison falls flat. Say instead, who has more invested…the owner of a manufacturing company or the town that company resides in. Consider…if the company goes TU, the owner will file for bankruptcy and perhaps even lose everything (to a certain point…or perhaps not, and retain enough capital to simply start a new company somewhere else). If the manufacturing company goes TU however the town may lose a good portion of it’s jobs, will certainly lose the tax revenue that was previously generated. Depending on the size of the town it could be either a large blow or a disaster. Towns have died because they lost some key manufacturer or company.

So…you tell me Hentor. Who has a bigger stake…who has the most to lose? Even if you insist on keeping this on a one for one basis (sort of like comparing the effect of losing Michael Jordan to that of losing the water boy…who has more to lose? MJ of course…but then, the team has lost more too, ehe?), how about this: Who has more to lose, XT or the owner of Nextira One? Well, when Nextira one went TU in early 2000 XT lost his job…and since many OTHER IT companies were going TU at the same time XT was out of a job for quite some time. That meant that XT had to go on unemployment, eventually sell his house and move West Young Man to seek supposedly greener fields. Eventually XT found a job making something like half of his old salary…and he was THANKFUL, praise the lord!

The owners of Nextira One? I have no idea…but my GUESS is that they took their money and eventually invested in new companies or ventures and are probably still millionaires today (XT was a millionaire too, on paper…the operative word being ‘was’). So…who had more investment? The owners of Nextira One. Who needed who more? I needed them more than they needed me since I NEEDED a job more than they needed the company in the end.

If I’m a temp, I’m out exactly the same amount if there’s suddenly no more company or no more America. The owner and I can both go to Canada with our hats in hand to find a job there.

No…even using your one to one analogy the owner may be out more, but he’ll be in a better position to deal with it than the temp. And of course, unless the temp is the ONLY person out a job you have a cumulative effect. If we are talking about 10,000 temps out jobs vs one owner, and a community out a tax revenue stream…well, it sort of changes the equation. Again, you are trying to relate Michael Jordan to the water boy here and then draw conclusions.

-XT

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@xtisme

Which question do you want answered first here? What are the wealthy going to eat? Well, in theory at least, The Wealthy™ are going to be in a better position to buy whatever food is available than you and I are.

Using what to obtain that food? Does the American Dollar have value if there is no America?

Who has more invested in America staying strong? Probably the owner of a company than an individual temp simply because he has more to lose…the temp could, in theory just find another temp position.

Glad we agree.

Again however your attempt to draw a comparison falls flat. Say instead, who has more invested…the owner of a manufacturing company or the town that company resides in. Consider…if the company goes TU, the owner will file for bankruptcy and perhaps even lose everything (to a certain point…or perhaps not, and retain enough capital to simply start a new company somewhere else). If the manufacturing company goes TU however the town may lose a good portion of it’s jobs, will certainly lose the tax revenue that was previously generated. Depending on the size of the town it could be either a large blow or a disaster. Towns have died because they lost some key manufacturer or company.

So, my comparison falls flat, while you propose an explanation of federal taxation by using a town as an example? Bring it back to the level of the discussion and then explain to me again how your logic works, please.

[XT]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Using what to obtain that food? Does the American Dollar have value if there is no America?

Because even if we assume things go that far Rich People™ have…well, stuff. They have gold, jewelery, other precious commodities. So, even if we predict the entire collapse of our civilization (which I have no idea why we are even going down this path), rich folk are going to be better off…which means you and I have more to lose in actual terms, if not in proportional terms. I’m uncertain why you either can’t grasp this or why you won’t. Seems pretty straight forward to me. And really, it has little to do with why Middle Class people support the Republicans…

Glad we agree.

lol…to be sure.

So, my comparison falls flat, while you propose an explanation of federal taxation by using a town as an example? Bring it back to the level of the discussion and then explain to me again how your logic works, please.

No, I think not. I’ve gone into detail as to why your and Bob’s analogy is flawed already and I don’t have the patience to endlessly repeat myself. At some point you just have to agree to disagree. I think my analogy is flawed as well (I can think of several ways actually), but it’s closer to the mark than the insurance for cars thingy. shrug Different strokes and all that. Thing is, you really haven’t bothered to address my points…I assume because you don’t feel they are worth the bother…so, at this point I’ll simply go into watch mode for the thread unless something interesting pops up. Really we’ve rather strayed from the original question in any case. I don’t think most people follow one party or the other for purely economic needs, whether real or perceived, but because they are more interested in vertical issues or pet programs…or in a lot of cases because that’s the party they parents voted for (or DIDN’T vote for).

-XT

[Hostile_Dialect]

@cosmosdan

Cite for specific countries please.

I was specifically thinking of Israel. Income tax apparently only goes up to 47% on a yearly basis now, but here is an official Israeli government document which notes 60% income tax rates right on the first page. (PDF warning).

A note of clarification: I didn’t mean that 50% happened in most developed countries, just that incredibly high income taxes are de rigeur in most developed countries and they could get as high as 50%.

@cosmosdan

I don’t owe any additional something to anyone because they made a choice to buy my widget.

Well, gee, when you put it so simply it makes a lot of sense, but what about the public education that allowed you to put together a widget business? What about the firefighters who saved your home when you were 10 so that you would one day grow up to be a widget maven? What about the social security checks that allow retirees to buy your widgets? What about, dare I say it, the unemployment checks that allow those down on their luck to buy your widgets? What about the public education that put 5 million people in the position to buy widgets from you? (If you sell medical widgets, you’re screwed without a plentiful supply of doctors and hospital managers to sell to. If you sell automotive widgets, you’re screwed without a plentiful supply of cars, drivers and mechanics in this country.) What about the society that gave you and 5 million widget-buyers bootstraps to pull yourselves up on, so that one day you could grow up to sell widgets and 5 million people could grow up to buy them?

By the way, if it’s not OK to subsidize people who fall on hard times, why is it OK to subsidize businesses that fail based on bad business practices? The whole point of your heartwarming little risk-benefit story is that you risked everything to make widgets and you want to reap the benefits. But under the Republicans, super-rich banking firms reap the benefits and have no risk. How does that make sense?

@cosmosdan

Perhaps I’m just nitpicking terminology here but I do object to the concept that rich people owe something to the less fortunate.

Someone asked why there are rich Democrats. I answered. If you have a problem, take it up with the rich Democrats.

@cosmosdan

If we can show that a society works better with a progressive tax system then that’s fine.

What evidence, exactly, are you looking for?

@xtisme

The mind of the person or people who conceived, designed and capitalized the company to produce them. Where else?

And that person would have the same education and capital to start this business growing up in, say, Belize?

@xtisme

The workers hired (and paid) by the person or people who conceived the product and created the company to produce them.

And the same number of quality workers would be available in Belize?

@xtisme

The consumers who desire to purchase said widgets…and who wouldn’t be able to buy them if they were never conceived of and produced.

And those customers would have the exact same need and disposable income in Belize?

@xtisme

Unless someone puts up the capital and takes the risks then all those workers won’t have those jobs.

So we subsidize those risks? I thought Republicans didn’t like socialism. How confusing!

@welby

Sure, he used the mechanisms society put into place, but he got no special advanatge.

That’s a fine argument in theory, but in practice, most widget mavens actually do get a special advantage. They have rich daddies, they’re white, straight, and Christian, and they grew up in nice neighborhoods where they were expected to do well and treated accordingly.

@welby

And I’d also question why he has a moral obligation to provide more than someone who didn’t come up with the widget.

Because he has more to give, silly. Maimonides’ rules of Jewish giving didn’t apply to paupers. OTOH, anyone with as much money or more has an equal (or greater) obligation to give back to society.

@welby

And if he is beholden to society, then he settle that debt through taxes and charitable giving (if he gives, not all do).

Um, yeah, that would be the entire point. What, exactly, do you think we’re asking him to give?

[XT]

@Hostile Dialect

And that person would have the same education and capital to start this business growing up in, say, Belize?

I suppose it depends on the product or service the company is producing, no? As to capital costs for starting up, perhaps Belize would offer up incentives to a perspective company (though I’m guessing the logistics would be against such a venture there…though perhaps the scenery and climate would be attractive).

And the same number of quality workers would be available in Belize?

Again, it depends on the products or services being offered. Are you saying that a work force couldn’t be trained up in Belize? Are the native there too stupid to train or something? Are they different than the work force in India or China or other countries that the US and Europe (and Japan, and and and) outsource too?

And those customers would have the exact same need and disposable income in Belize?

You are really fixated on Belize aren’t you? I’ve never been there myself so I wouldn’t know. As to your question, who cares? I doubt you’d be selling the majority of your goods or services to the local population, at least initially…you’d be manufacturing things for export or providing services to external customers.

So we subsidize those risks? I thought Republicans didn’t like socialism. How confusing!

Well, I’m certainly confused as I have no idea what the hell you are talking about…or how this question derived from my own statement. Could you elaborate? AFAICT I didn’t mention subsidizing risk, socialism or even Republicans…of which I’m not one in any case so my opinion would hardly be representative.

-XT

[Hostile_Dialect]

@xtisme

Are you saying that a work force couldn’t be trained up in Belize? Are the native there too stupid to train or something?

That was swell of you to turn this into an accusation of racism, but no, I mean that, thanks to well-established economic and educational traditions in this country, you don’t have to train up a work force here. There is already a work force ready to make widgets for you.

If you’re talking about outsourcing–I wasn’t; I was talking about growing up in Belize and starting a widget business there–that’s a venture that involves a lot of capital and a lot of risk, which means you would have already succeeded to some degree in the U.S.

@xtisme

You are really fixated on Belize aren’t you?

It’s an example. Can you say “example”?

@xtisme

Well, I’m certainly confused as I have no idea what the hell you are talking about…or how this question derived from my own statement. Could you elaborate? AFAICT I didn’t mention subsidizing risk, socialism or even Republicans…of which I’m not one in any case so my opinion would hardly be representative.

You are participating in a thread called “Why middle class support for Republicans?”, arguing why there is middle class support for Republicans. Current Republican economic policy mostly consists of subsidizing the financial industry’s risk.

[Evil_Captor]

@flickster

This is the most realistic comment made so far.

I grew up with middle class values in east Tennessee. It is very much a “earn your own way” mentality. Being on the “Government dole” was something to be shamed and scorned. People would gladly help those that helped themselves, but those that sat on the front porch waiting for the next check to roll in they had no use for.

So even though by and large, these people are still not what one would consider wealthy, all this talk of redistribution of wealth (socialism) goes against their core beliefs. When you combine that with gun control and late term abortion you end up with a group that despite the inept candidate, they’ll still vote republican.

Oh, come on, man. Most of frickin’ rural America is already on the govt. dole one way or another. Thje really poor get various subsidies (food stamps, etc.) and the farmers get govt subsidies (prices supports, getting paid for NOT raising crops, etc.) and an inordinately high number of employees in many rural counties are employed by … the government.

Hell, what was the old business of the good ol’ boys hanging out on the courthouse steps all about if not working the government?

[Shodan]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

First, that is a misstatement of what I said, which I presume is intentional. Of course, what I said is that Reagan’s tax increases had a deficit-reducing effect.

So, what you were saying is that they had a deficit reducing effect that didn’t have any effect in reducing the deficit. Well, thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

Now, you have your cite.

Well, no, what I asked for is a cite that the deficit went down, which you have somehow neglected to produce.

I expect a reply to my initial question to you. Again, given your (completely nonsensical) rationalizations and handwavings about the positive effect of Clinton’s tax program on the economy, how do you justify Reagan’s tax increases and explain their impact on revenues?

Well, perhaps you could trouble yourself to actually read the passage to which you were responding. I was asserting a number of known facts. Here they are again.

Clinton’s first action upon taking office was an attempt to increase the deficit. This effort was beaten back. The budget was never balanced until Republicans took control of Congress, and Clinton fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, including a shutdown of the federal government.

The deficit jumped after 9/11 and the pop of the dot.com bubble, trended steadily downward until Democrats regained control of Congress, and had since doubled.

Each and every statement is demonstrably true. The only issue is, I have proven them over and over again to the point that only a fool would disbelieve them. If you would like to dispute them, knock yourself out. I can’t be bothered.

If, on the other hand, you read it, realize that the facts contained within are unassailable, you could try to distort it into some ridiculous bullshit and try to get me to respond to that. I can’t be bothered with that either.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Shodan

If, on the other hand, you read it, realize that the facts contained within are unassailable, you could try to distort it into some ridiculous bullshit and try to get me to respond to that. I can’t be bothered with that either.

Regards,
Shodan

Yeah, I figured you’d not have much of an answer. Crazy handwaving about Clinton’s deficit reduction being separate from his tax policy, and an inability to explain why the effect of Reagan’s tax increases was a net improvement of the deficit. Add in some attempt at obtuse distraction, and finish with a Regards.

Pretty much boilerplate stuff.

[flickster]

@Evil_Captor

Oh, come on, man. Most of frickin’ rural America is already on the govt. dole one way or another. Thje really poor get various subsidies (food stamps, etc.) and the farmers get govt subsidies (prices supports, getting paid for NOT raising crops, etc.) and an inordinately high number of employees in many rural counties are employed by … the government.

Hell, what was the old business of the good ol’ boys hanging out on the courthouse steps all about if not working the government?

And this is based on…? Did you grow up and/or currently live in a rural area or are these beliefs based on some TV show you watched once upon a time?

[Evil_Captor]

@flickster

And this is based on…? Did you grow up and/or currently live in a rural area or are these beliefs based on some TV show you watched once upon a time?

I worked with rural officials for several years. Learned a lot.

[Fear_Itself]

@flickster

And this is based on…? Did you grow up and/or currently live in a rural area or are these beliefs based on some TV show you watched once upon a time?

In March of 2008, there were 332,900 people working in Alaska. 81,700 worked in the government; that’s almost one out of four jobs, by far the largest industry in the state, more than the oil industry, more than fishing and more than tourism.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I’m just pushing back against the idea that any individual can sell 5 million widgets completely of their own accord.

An idea I never promoted. I see others have answered well. I’d just like to clarify my position. It’s perfectly obvious that a widget manufacturer involves a lot of individuals playing their roles. Workers get paid, and that means increased tax revenues from not only the business but all the workers as well. My objection was to the implication that the rich owe something more than the jobs they provide and the taxes they pay to the less fortunate.

But they also are beholden to the society that existed to provide ALL of the resources they took advantage of to generate that wealth.

they are beholden to the circumstance of their birth? No more or less than any other right? Some people sit on their ass or are content to punch a time clock and collect a paycheck rather than work extra hours and invest their time and money to pursue an idea, do those who take the risk owe them something?

I see a moral and ethical obligation on the part of people who benefit so greatly to pay taxes to support the continued existence of that society that they benefitted from themselves.

Not to mention a legal one. That was never in question. The question is how much of the tax burden should they be compelled to pay. When does that tax burden squelch innovation and expansion? The opposite side of that coin is when do social programs become enablers of slackers rather than a helping hand?
Yes they benefit from from the society but they also offered benefits to that same society in the form of goods and employment. They pay taxes on business income and support the tax base by employing others who pay taxes. Do they owe something more than that?

[flickster]

@Fear_Itself

In March of 2008, there were 332,900 people working in Alaska. 81,700 worked in the government; that’s almost one out of four jobs, by far the largest industry in the state, more than the oil industry, more than fishing and more than tourism.

My original comments were regarding the middle class values where I grew up in east Tennessee. As for those on the “Government Dole”, I surely wasn’t speaking of anyone that was working for a living. I think the term I used was “sitting on the front porch waiting for the next check to come in” which has nothing to do with anyone gainfully employed and making their own way. Government employment is still considered working instead of being on the Government Dole and therefore being subject to the scorn and ridicule of the working middle class.

[cosmosdan]

[quote=“cosmosdan, post:97, topic:468531”]

My objection was to the implication that the rich owe something more than the jobs they provide and the taxes they pay to the less fortunate.
`

Hmmmm let me rephrase.

My objection is the implication that the rich owe an additional something more to the less fortunate than the benefits to society their efforts already provide in jobs and taxes.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

[quote=“cosmosdan, post:99, topic:468531”]

@cosmosdan

Hmmmm let me rephrase.

My objection is the implication that the rich owe an additional something more to the less fortunate than the benefits to society their efforts already provide in jobs and taxes.

I agree with you. Wealthy business owners have no greater direct obligation to the poor than anyone else. I’ve not said anything to the contrary here.

They do have a greater obligation, even if only out of sheer self-interest, to America than others.

America must then decide what obligations it has to the poor.