Why Do People Vote Against Their Own Interest?

[dt3]

I doubt anyone has ever knowingly and willfully voted against their own interest. I also think it's extremely arrogant to think you know what's best for somebody else.

Not directed at anybody in particular, just answering the question.

 

[Minor Axis]

I doubt anyone has ever knowingly and willfully voted against their own interest.

They don't knowingly do it. It's a strong, focused, not necessarily thought out philosophical stance that misses the forest for the trees, that elevates one or two issues out of a 100 that effects the individual. It's human nature.

 

[Tim]

People will vote against their own interest due to lack of real substantive information. People will listen to the talking heads (both sides) and get drawn in on catch phrases and emotional responses. A good example of this is the estate tax. You can't get regular folk whipped up to battle along side of wealthy to abolish a tax that will effect the top 5% without first making seem like it effects everyone. So they called it a death tax. Then you can get uneducated people up in arms about not having to pay a tax when they die. Yet they never bother to look at who or what this tax will effect, sure as hell not them. Yet there they are with their little painted signs protesting the government taxing them when they die...

That's how you get people to vote against their best interest.

 

[nova]

People will vote against their own interest due to lack of real substantive information. People will listen to the talking heads (both sides) and get drawn in on catch phrases and emotional responses. A good example of this is the estate tax. You can't get regular folk whipped up to battle along side of wealthy to abolish a tax that will effect the top 5% without first making seem like it effects everyone. So they called it a death tax. Then you can get uneducated people up in arms about not having to pay a tax when they die. Yet they never bother to look at who or what this tax will effect, sure as hell not them. Yet there they are with their little painted signs protesting the government taxing them when they die...

That's how you get people to vote against their best interest.

Maybe in your world. In mine, taxing assets that someone has already paid taxes on over the course of their life just because they died is wrong, regardless of who it affects.

To vote against it is only against my interests in the same sense that deciding not to mug the old lady on the street is against my interest by stealing money to put in my pocket.

 

[Tim]

Maybe in your world. In mine, taxing assets that someone has already paid taxes on over the course of their life just because they died is wrong, regardless of who it affects.

To vote against it is only against my interests in the same sense that deciding not to mug the old lady on the street is against my interest by stealing money to put in my pocket.

So if I buy a used car I shouldn't have to pay tax on it since tax was paid on it when it was purchased new?

How about if I just hand over all my paychecks to you... are you saying you shouldn't have to pay taxes on that income since I already paid taxes on it?

 

[nova]

You'll look for any rationale to tax anybody you don't like huh? :24:

So if I buy a used car I shouldn't have to pay tax on it since tax was paid on it when it was purchased new?

Thats an apples to oranges comparison. Two separate sales are not even remotely similar to levying a tax on someone's assets simply because they're now 6 feet under. You MIGHT be remotely closer to a point if the estate was taxed as income to the individual or individuals its transfered to but its not, the tax is the same regardless of how many people get how much.

How about if I just hand over all my paychecks to you... are you saying you shouldn't have to pay taxes on that income since I already paid taxes on it?

Exactly. Once the income tax has been paid, that money should be yours to do with as you please without the gov't stepping in to take yet another chunk especially when its used as nothing more than a tool of class warfare to appease miffed off because you have the audacity to put in the effort to succeed where they didn't.

That stupid argument is along the lines of the people calling for the gov't to go after corporate income thats left overseas. We're one of the few nations that taxes foreign earned income at all and now the push is to not even wait till its repatriated but to go after it.

 

[Accountable]

People will vote against their own interest due to lack of real substantive information. People will listen to the talking heads (both sides) and get drawn in on catch phrases and emotional responses. A good example of this is the estate tax. You can't get regular folk whipped up to battle along side of wealthy to abolish a tax that will effect the top 5% without first making seem like it effects everyone. So they called it a death tax. Then you can get uneducated people up in arms about not having to pay a tax when they die. Yet they never bother to look at who or what this tax will effect, sure as hell not them. Yet there they are with their little painted signs protesting the government taxing them when they die...

That's how you get people to vote against their best interest.

So people shouldn't fight against anything that doesn't affect them? I guess you'd still have blacks in the cotton fields and women without the vote, then.

Besides that, the estate tax includes such "estates" as the family farm - land worth millions and a family in debt. Daddy dies and the son has to sell off part of the farm to pay the estate tax. You really make me sick with your class envy bullshit, y'know?

 

[Alien Allen]

So people shouldn't fight against anything that doesn't affect them? I guess you'd still have blacks in the cotton fields and women without the vote, then.

Besides that, the estate tax includes such "estates" as the family farm - land worth millions and a family in debt. Daddy dies and the son has to sell off part of the farm to pay the estate tax. You really make me sick with your class envy bullshit, y'know?

In a similar light when my mother died our business property had been in my dead fathers trust. We go hit on the property tax the same as if the property was sold. In MI the morons voted a stupid law several years ago that deals with the maximum a property tax can be. If ownership stayed the same it only went up a maximum of 3% a year regardless of market value. But if the property was sold the taxes were adjusted to the current market value. Since it had been in my dads name for ages the taxable value was less than the market value but since there was a name change we got nailed.

Any tax resulting on a death is friggin absurd. That IS redistribution of wealth

 

[Minor Axis]

Government, elected by the people must decide how much should be spent and how much tax revenue (and where that revenue will come from) is required to support that spending. Here we live in historically the most successful democracy. Our tax laws have been formed over the last 200 years by conservative and liberal forces. If we can't make it work, what form of government should we turn to?

I'm against estate tax for small estates, but just keep in mind the big wheels pushing against estate tax are the billionaire families like the Walmarts who are looking out for their best interests. Which bring up the concept of progressive taxes. In otherwords if you are rolling in money, you have the ability to pay a larger % of your wealth towards taxes. I support the concept. If you are a billionaire, poor you if you have to pay a higher % towards taxes. Your are still rolling in more money, than most people can even imagine.

 

[Accountable]

Government, elected by the people must decide how much should be spent and how much tax revenue (and where that revenue will come from) is required to support that spending. Here we live in historically the most successful democracy. Our tax laws have been formed over the last 200 years by conservative and liberal forces. If we can't make it work, what form of government should we turn to?

We don't need to scrap the concept, just the current lot of politicians, then prune all the excesses like that hedge that got too big.

I'm against estate tax for small estates, but just keep in mind the big wheels pushing against estate tax are the billionaire families like the Walmarts who are looking out for their best interests. Which bring up the concept of progressive taxes. In otherwords if you are rolling in money, you have the ability to pay a larger % of your wealth towards taxes. I support the concept. If you are a billionaire, poor you if you have to pay a higher % towards taxes. Your are still rolling in more money, than most people can even imagine.

So it's okay to be unfair because they have more? It's okay to be unfair because they're more successful? "Excess" success should be punished??

 

[Minor Axis]

So it's okay to be unfair because they have more? It's okay to be unfair because they're more successful? "Excess" success should be punished??

Fair is not set in concrete with the same standard for someone making $20k per year equal to what the person who makes $1m per year. That's the whole idea of progressive tax policy.

 

[Accountable]

"Fair" cannot be a flexible, arbitrary term. If it is, it is meaningless. Your "progressive" tax policy punishes success, rewards sloth, and creates a disincentive to excel.

 

[Minor Axis]

"Fair" cannot be a flexible, arbitrary term. If it is, it is meaningless. Your "progressive" tax policy punishes success, rewards sloth, and creates a disincentive to excel.

It's not arbitrary and the fairness of it is based on your opinion. It does not punish, but acknowledge and act upon the principle that those with plenty can afford to pay more. I doubt the self made millionaires will stop excelling based on a progressive tax policy. The people who are well off don't really need any special deals now do they?

 

[Accountable]

It's not arbitrary and the fairness of it is based on your opinion. It does not punish, but acknowledge and act upon the principle that those with plenty can afford to pay more. I doubt the self made millionaires will stop excelling based on a progressive tax policy. The people who are well off don't really need any special deals now do they?

I'm quoting this because I can't believe you won't want to edit it once you see how stupid and twisted the "logic" is.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm quoting this because I can't believe you won't want to edit it once you see how stupid and twisted the "logic" is.

Progressive tax policies have been around for at least my life time. It's your right to view it as twisted, but the majority of people who have been elected into public office for the last 50 years don't seem to agree with you either or they would have gotten rid of it.

 

[Accountable]

Shiiiit. Politicians do short-term feel-good things to the long-term detriment of society all the time. I'm trying to think of the last time they did anything at all the other way round. But you keep up your 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' mantra and pretend it's democratic and fair, 'kay?

 

[Minor Axis]

People are the problem coming and going. If we could just take them out of the process everything would be wonderful...

 

[Minor Axis]

Found here. For those of you who'd like to compare the liberal Obama's deficit policies to the conservative Bush. And gee note the deficit under Clinton, the worst liberal of all, oh wait, that's a surplus. Just don't forget the conservatives were screaming bloody murder about Clinton policies destroying the country:

 

[retro]

Dear God, are you people still claiming a surplus during Clinton? That "surplus" existed because public held debt went down, but intragovernmental holdings went up. They borrowed money from Medicare and Social Security in order to make it look like there was a surplus, when in actuality the national debt went up every year during the Clinton presidency. It was smoke and mirrors, and I can't believe any of you actually still buy into it.

 

[nova]

Found here. For those of you who'd like to compare the liberal Obama's deficit policies to the conservative Bush. And gee note the deficit under Clinton, the worst liberal of all, oh wait, that's a surplus. Just don't forget the conservatives were screaming bloody murder about Clinton policies destroying the country:

And yet somehow Mr. Obama and his Democronies in Congress managed to expand the deficit beyond an astronomical $1.2 trillion to $1.5 billion for the coming year. As much as GWB spent money like it was going out of style, they're adding to the debt at a rate 3X what he did...

Don't sit there and make the absolutely fucking ridiculous case that Barack Obama is even remotely fiscally responsible. The only billions he's met that he doesn't want to spend are the one's that are Constitutionally authorized....