Why do Conservatives Vote Against Their Own Interests?

[Stone]

No one is suggestion balancing the budget on the backs of the wealth, only insisting that the wealthiest in society can afford to put more into the kitty than they currently do. The insistence by GOP that the wealthy pay to much is pure and simple pandering to their cherished base and saying FU to the rest of us.

No one is suggestion balancing the budget on the backs of the wealth

I've seen both banned and John make arguments of that nature and I have only been here several months.

The insistence by GOP that the wealthy pay to much is pure and simple pandering to their cherished base and saying FU to the rest of us.

Like I responded to AA....like talking to a wall.

 

[Tim]

Depends upon whom you call 'wealthy'.

If you confiscate all the wealth of the Forbes 400, wealth ranging from $50billion to $1.05 billion in personal assets ......it's not enough to cover the 2011 budget deficit.
These are the people that most identify as being the scalpers of society.
If you tax their income at 100% you're collecting even less revenue.
Tax them at 45% the revenue declines even more.
So taxation increases would logically have to dip into the upper middle class.

So if you aren't the top 400 people earning income you must be in the upper middle class? :24:


Go get yourself a tax chart to see how much income was earned by the top 2% last year, then come back to me with that.



And that's only taking into account for personal income. Let's also look at the net income of all of business.

 

[Minor Axis]

I've seen both banned and John make arguments of that nature and I have only been here several months.

Like I responded to AA....like talking to a wall.

Are walls known to be less receptive than stones?

 

[Tim]

Just to help you out a bit stone...

in 2009 the top 0.1 percent filed 137,982 tax returns averaging $4.4 million each. That is equal to half the nations deficit alone.

Like I said, I would not advocate taxing the rich at 100%... but to say that you could not tax the rich 100% to pay the deficit is untrue.

Again, we aren't even talking about corporations here.

 

[Tim]

One more fact. Personal income in 2009 was over $6 trillion. Our deficit this year is just under $1.3 trillion
The top 1% earn 16.9% of all of the income or over $1 trillion dollars

 

[Minor Axis]

One more fact. Personal income in 2009 was over $6 trillion. Our deficit this year is just under $1.3 trillion
The top 1% earn 16.9% of all of the income or over $1 trillion dollars

Your target audience is mostly singing "lalala" to themselves.

 

[Stone]

So if you aren't the top 400 people earning income you must be in the upper middle class? :24:


Go get yourself a tax chart to see how much income was earned by the top 2% last year, then come back to me with that.



And that's only taking into account for personal income. Let's also look at the net income of all of business.

So if you aren't the top 400 people earning income you must be in the upper middle class? :24:

It's obvious you have no intention of addressing my question nor the implications of how far down the income levels income tax increases will occur.
That creep has already occurred in the 2012 tax code with the reductions of exclusions that are going to have a major impact on the middle class, upper class, also.
Something to read concerning 2011 returns:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-tax-mines-could-blow-050133260.html

Go get yourself a tax chart to see how much income was earned by the top 2% last year, then come back to me with that.

You need to make your own argument, I'm not furnishing your logic for you.
And my position is like that of AA earlier.....what the very wealthy have is not enough, but what small minds refuse to admit is that it's not an argument against 'fair' taxation of the wealthy.....it's pointing out that it's not enough alone to balance a budget.

And that's only taking into account for personal income. Let's also look at the net income of all of business

That ignores the fact that not only do Corporations pay tax on profits, the owners pay income tax on the distributions after those corporate taxes have been paid.
A business owner of a company not incorporated, and the US has considerable numbers of them, pays taxes as personal income already.

So....you're only speaking out your ass with incredible simplicity.
The great wealth of corporations is represented by value of their stock ....is held by the very wealthy and in the final analysis, the tax on those corporate profits is actually leveraged against the owners....as a generality, the wealthy.
And here is where your attempt fails............much of the wealth of corporate America is already figured into the wealth of the owners....those of the very wealthy you likely hate.
To add the sums together as you are trying to do is a major fallacy.

And that's not even an argument not to increase corporate taxation.......just the scene you haven't a fucking clue about.

 

[Minor Axis]

It's obvious you have no intention of addressing my question nor the implications of how far down the income levels income tax increases will occur.

So if you were going to pick a political leader in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, who would it be and more importantly why?

 

[Stone]

Just to help you out a bit stone...

in 2009 the top 0.1 percent filed 137,982 tax returns averaging $4.4 million each. That is equal to half the nations deficit alone.

Like I said, I would not advocate taxing the rich at 100%... but to say that you could not tax the rich 100% to pay the deficit is untrue.

Again, we aren't even talking about corporations here.

in 2009 the top 0.1 percent filed 137,982 tax returns averaging $4.4 million each. That is equal to half the nations deficit alone.

And to accomplish that you'd need a 100% tax increase of that .1%
But as posted before, it depends on where you consider the breaks for Wealth and how you tax them.
How much wealth constitutes a class?
The very most wealthy are on that Forbes 400.
And range from ~50billion to one billion.
If you are going to argue a progressive tax rate, conceptually there is a difference in taxing the incomes of a multi-millionaire and a multi-billionaire.

Your argument, while limited to .1%, does not consider the staggering range of wealth levels within the Forbes 400 (which is <.003% of that 137982) let alone within that .1%.

I picked the Forbes 400 because it is an upper echelon level of wealth and most of the members are ones thought of as being abusers because their economic status.
So it depends upon where you picked your levels........ but you averaged them.

Like I said, I would not advocate taxing the rich at 100%

Good.
And there still isn't enough wealth among those that represent the extreme wealth of the nation to cover the 2011 Federal deficit.


And to further complicate ......the rates of taxation necessary from the group you designate as the .1% is likely to drive not only their investments off shore looking for better returns, likely some of the upper middle class, also.

Again, we aren't even talking about corporations here.

As shown, there is considerable connectivity between the wealth of individuals and corporate wealth. Your imagery of corporate taxation being an independent concept is not real.

 

[Stone]

So if you were going to pick a political leader in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, who would it be and more importantly why?

I have no picks at the moment but will consider going with the one that I think will do the least damage.

Recently, I've voted for Clinton twice, Gore and Kerry and then McCain.
I was not enthusiastic about the last 3 and saw them as 'the lesser of two evils'.

why?

I don't see moderation in the front runners and I see that being more important than the current political dogma in both parties.


Probably not what you want to hear.

 

[Alien Allen]

The insistence by GOP that the wealthy pay to much is pure and simple pandering to their cherished base and saying FU to the rest of us.

The insistence of the Dems saying the wealthy do not pay enough is pure and simple pandering to their cherished base. Saying FU to real reforms that their cherished base will revolt at.

See how that works

Nah I did not think so

 

[Tim]

The insistence of the Dems saying the wealthy do not pay enough is pure and simple pandering to their cherished base. Saying FU to real reforms that their cherished base will revolt at.

See how that works

Nah I did not think so

Wow...

I'm not even sure how to respond to this...

Go look at a chart and see who spends this country into debt. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Clinton and it wasn't Obama. As much as you would love to make them the bad guys, you need to look at your own beloved party to find the culprits. The Republicans are the ones that spend this country into oblivion.

I love how my correction of Stone's assertion that the wealthy in this country don't even make enough to cover the deficit turned into me wanting to tax the hell out of the ubber rich. Please go back and reread my posts. I was only correcting him... nothing more. Not once in this thread have you heard me say that I'm fine with how much the government spends or that we aren't taxing enough....

 

[Stone]

Wow...

I'm not even sure how to respond to this...

Go look at a chart and see who spends this country into debt. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Clinton and it wasn't Obama. As much as you would love to make them the bad guys, you need to look at your own beloved party to find the culprits. The Republicans are the ones that spend this country into oblivion.

I love how my correction of Stone's assertion that the wealthy in this country don't even make enough to cover the deficit turned into me wanting to tax the hell out of the ubber rich. Please go back and reread my posts. I was only correcting him... nothing more. Not once in this thread have you heard me say that I'm fine with how much the government spends or that we aren't taxing enough....

Go look at a chart and see who spends this country into debt. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Clinton and it wasn't Obama.

More like Bush and Obama.

The Republicans are the ones that spend this country into oblivion.

No denying the Republicans did under Bush, but Obama does seem to be doing a follow up that's challenging Bush's record.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

And that chart only goes to the year 2010
The federal debt now is almost 17 trillion
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

I love how my correction of Stone's assertion that the wealthy in this country don't even make enough to cover the deficit turned into me wanting to tax the hell out of the ubber rich.

Of course you want to tax the the hell out of uber rich......never thought you didn't.
I suspect a great deal of socialist wealth envy.
And now I notice you now mentioning the uber wealthy as a class where many here don't make the distinction, but speak as if all the wealthy are of one class.... the uber.

Not once in this thread have you heard me say that I'm fine with how much the government spends...................

Indeed, your silence is curious.
Now is a good time to speak your position on the Federal deficit.

 

[Stone]

The insistence of the Dems saying the wealthy do not pay enough is pure and simple pandering to their cherished base. Saying FU to real reforms that their cherished base will revolt at.

See how that works

Nah I did not think so

Yeah......like talking to a wall

It's always all the other guy's fault :mad ( )

 

[Tim]

More like Bush and Obama.

No, more like bush

 

[Stone]

Here's some salvation for you socialists wanting to tax the hell out of millionaires.......import them



http://seekingalpha.com/article/337591-how-to-offset-the-deficit-import-chinese-millionaires


hmmm.....millionaires escaping socialism.....and they want to come here. Interesting.

 

[Stone]

No, more like bush

Maybe you ought to read that header a lot closer.
That's policy differences, not fiscal differences.
Obama inherited a mess......but he has continued many elements of it.
It's not just what a man does in office on his own from his beginnings, it's what's being done under his leadership that includes past influences that he judged upon as a leader. .....and the Federal debt is projected to continue rising under his leadership.

 

[Minor Axis]

I have no picks at the moment but will consider going with the one that I think will do the least damage.

Recently, I've voted for Clinton twice, Gore and Kerry and then McCain.
I was not enthusiastic about the last 3 and saw them as 'the lesser of two evils'.


I don't see moderation in the front runners and I see that being more important than the current political dogma in both parties.


Probably not what you want to hear.

Your voting list gives me a lot of perspective. Thanks for sharing. Quid Pro Quo: Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama... All of these choices are who can do the least harm. The F-ing Republicans get on their high horses about what needs to be done, but don't want to talk about their negligent years ending 3 years ago when they had "their man" in the White House. The thing is, I see no reason why the next GOPer to sieze the office will be any less negligent. Our political system is just too FU'd. Even if Obama could have gotten something done, he had half of the Congress only worrying about one thing, how to stop him from achieving anything for 4 years we could not afford to waste.. Something radical has to happen to get us back on the right track. I'm not about to surmise what that might be. As long as we are split down the middle politically, we will never get on the right track.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Stone]

Your voting list gives me a lot of perspective. Thanks for sharing. Quid Pro Quo: Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama... All of these choices are who can do the least harm. The F-ing Republicans get on their high horses about what needs to be done, but don't want to talk about their negligent years ending 3 years ago when they had "their man" in the White House. The thing is, I see no reason why the next GOPer to sieze the office will be any less negligent. Our political system is just too FU'd. Even if Obama could have gotten something done, he had half of the Congress only worrying about one thing, how to stop him from achieving anything for 4 years we could not afford to waste.. Something radical has to happen to get us back on the right track. I'm not about to surmise what that might be. As long as we are split down the middle politically, we will never get on the right track.

The political polarization in the US has reached a degree that there is little commonality when it comes to the critical issues. The concept of compromise eludes both parties.

Our political system is just too FU'd.

I agree.

The thing is, I see no reason why the next GOPer to sieze the office will be any less negligent.

I can agree there also.
My late father was so pissed at an actor being nominated for the Presidency, he refused to vote.
I'm not far from that, myself.
I don't like voting with the concept of 'doing the least damage' when the quality of choices is as low as today.