The Republican's All-Consuming Obsession With Tax Cuts For the Rich

[Skroe]

And that is quite simply why we'll never agree ideologically. Because quite honestly if you're not in it for the success of the country as a whole, I'm more than happy to show you the door.

Well, I think this serves as a reminder, I am a conservative. I am not a liberal, despite my making cause with liberals in wanting to see President Watersports do a perp walk before the decade is out. My post is what real conservatism looks like. It also works fantastically well in liberal Massachusetts, which is why Republicans can win here.

Secondly, I think we need to not be bound to definding success as every state succeeding the the same way. Massachuetts has a very vibrant tech sector. It suceeds in that way way. Alabama is essential to our space program, and if that were to grow under my budget vision (as it should), it would be the beneficiary of that while Massachusetts would not be. Broadbased national success comes from the sum of the DIVERSITY of success.

Well have fun with that. But I'll tell you this: your "humans are numbers" arguments are going to lose against emotional politics every. day. of. the. year.

Oh of course it will. Which is why you don't frame the argument as such in a political setting. The heart will win over the brain every time (something Democrats and anti-Trump people MUST remember in 2018 and 2020). There is a time and place for numbers. It's not in front of a crowd of everyday voters.

The fact that Americans have TVs and microwaves doesn't mean we don't have problems. If that's the argument you (or Spectral) or anyone else is going to make you can save your fingers the exercise.

We have huge problems. But they're all solvable, and to be blunt, they're all the problems of success. We forget that in this country. We're talking about the best way to finance a social safety net.... because we're in a country that (1) is wealthy enough to have one that can support tens of millions of people and (2) are in a country has has a huge diversity of options in financing it. To put it simply, this are the problems we want to have.

In fact I'd say the tone and magnitude of our political disagreements at a national level comes from the fact that we're three, almost four generations of Americans removed from the last generation that knew any, real existential hardship.

- - - Updated - - -

My guess is that @Skroe and I share the same sense of concentric loyalties. While there's some amount of this that's fuzzy and hard to define, speaking broadly I'd say that my responsibility to my wife is nearly infinite, my responsibility to my family significant, to my city less so, and on out. I reject the idea that I should care about all humans equally and I don't think it's remotely practical to try to do so.

If I'm as financially responsible for a Mississippian as I am for a Wisconsinite, why does this not extend to San Salvador or Jakarta? I suppose for the sufficiently committed egalitarian humanist, that's exactly the implication, but I'm not buying it. I have some responsibility to share with my countrymen, but it's not infinite, and it's less than my responsibility to co-residents of my state.

This is basically how I feel at a national level. Although again, I do think there is a minimum standard in every sense. If there is crimes against humanity in San Salvador, as the most powerful country in the world and the architect and defender of the liberal international order, we have a responsibility to put a stop to it, first through peaceful means, and then, if necessary through military force. Because if we don't it could normalize something abhorrent and reduce the standard.

[derpkitteh]

High taxes for the rich doesn't work because the rich don't pay their taxes to begin with. All you are doing is punishing the middle class and robbing them of their savings, businesses, investments and pensions.

high taxes for the rich works if you make harsh tax evasion laws and actually enforce them.

the current way rich people get away with tax evasion is the real problem.

[Skroe]

Somewhat off topic, but I'm skeptical of this claim. I think Cochran and Harpending laid out sufficient evidence in the 10,000 Year Explosion and elsewhere to be skeptical of very ancient anatomically modern humans actually having identical brain function to actual modern humans. How much of this comes down to linguistic development is anyone's guess at present, but I'd wager that you simply couldn't turn someone that arrived at adulthood without these skills to have sufficient plasticity to adapt to modernity (see feral children for evidence of the importance of linguistic development to cognition from early ages).

That's certainly possible, particularly that there was at least, one, if not two huge drops in the human population over the last 100,000 years. Ingenuity could easily have been selected for if survival was at stake due to environmental disruption.

[Triks]

high taxes for the rich works if you make harsh tax evasion laws and actually enforce them.

the current way rich people get away with tax evasion is the real problem.

It's not about discussing theory but what happens in the real world. Taxing large multinationals is useless.

[derpkitteh]

It's not about discussing theory but what happens in the real world. Taxing large multinationals is useless.

the reality is that the rich need to have laws equally applied to them.

letting them off scot free is fucking retarded. tax the fuck out of the wastes of life, and punish them severely when if they try to do anything.

[Draco-Onis]

It's not about discussing theory but what happens in the real world. Taxing large multinationals is useless.

No it is not there is actually a global consensus on this and ways to do it but because of lobbying no one wants to lead it, tax evasion is bad for every major western country.

[Spectral]

This is basically how I feel at a national level. Although again, I do think there is a minimum standard in every sense. If there is crimes against humanity in San Salvador, as the most powerful country in the world and the architect and defender of the liberal international order, we have a responsibility to put a stop to it, first through peaceful means, and then, if necessary through military force. Because if we don't it could normalize something abhorrent and reduce the standard.

Yeah, I agree. Again, concentric loyalties - it's incumbent on me to fund mitigation of the worst sorts of global atrocities and/or natural disasters. This is a moral imperative. The further in we zoom, the more I'm responsible for funding not just something like, "don't let genocide happen" to "buy nice things that aren't necessary at all" (with the extreme example being immediate family). The exact levels of to whom I owe what are obviously open to interpretation, but it surely can't be all things to all people.

[Draco-Onis]

In 2014 2.7% of tax returns filed paid 51.6% of the taxes. Basically 40% of the population pay 95% of the taxes. I will use the term "Fair share" the left loves to use. What needs to be done is an overhaul of our system. EVERYONE should pay some income tax, obviously a smaller percentage for lower income earners and higher as your pay goes up. Right now people who make less than 35k a year and have children, actually get more back than the pay in. That also needs to change.

That is a twisting of the facts what liberal means for fair share is how income is taxed versus everything else. There are thousands of people who pay nothing in taxes due to loopholes including corporations, some corporations have a negative tax rate. There is nothing fair about our current system and conservatives want to cut taxes on people who already pay less than most.

[Skroe]

I also want to highlight an additional point: moving the tax burden to the State level to a large degree ends the thread's topic. Why? It's not like the top 0.1% live in Red States for the most part. Sure, there could be some moral wrestling over what the best tax rate is for the top 0.1%. But when the top federal tax bracket is taxed at say, 15% or something, it would be fighting over nickles and dimes. If Texas wants to tax the rich at a low rate compared to California... let them. And then when Texas has to cut services due to lower state revenues, Texas residents can punish their elected officials.

I think that's perfect fair.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I agree. Again, concentric loyalties - it's incumbent on me to fund mitigation of the worst sorts of global atrocities and/or natural disasters. This is a moral imperative. The further in we zoom, the more I'm responsible for funding not just something like, "don't let genocide happen" to "buy nice things that aren't necessary at all" (with the extreme example being immediate family). The exact levels of to whom I owe what are obviously open to interpretation, but it surely can't be all things to all people.

Yep. Perfectly put.

[Triks]

the reality is that the rich need to have laws equally applied to them.

letting them off scot free is fucking retarded. tax the fuck out of the wastes of life, and punish them severely when if they try to do anything.

The reality is that the rich are untouchable because they either have vested interests in governments (and vice versa) or they have an army of lawyers and consultants.

No it is not there is actually a global consensus on this and ways to do it but because of lobbying no one wants to lead it, tax evasion is bad for every major western country.

You can have all the agreements you want, making the governments enforce those laws is one thing, the government enforcing those laws is another and collecting the taxes is a third thing.

The only thing that high taxes end up doing is incentivise evasion at all levels.

[derpkitteh]

The reality is that the rich are untouchable because they either have vested interests in governments (and vice versa) or they have an army of lawyers and consultants.

that's when you use force and constitutional amendments. if they won't obey, they'll be forced to obey through pain.

[Triks]

that's when you use force and constitutional amendments. if they won't obey, they'll be forced to obey through pain.

Good luck with that.

[Breccia]

it's stupid how people believe in this trickle down shit

The IMF certainly does not believe that trickle-down economics works.

[Deleted]

"Low Value Humans"? Maybe right now, in terms of skill set. Turning them into revenue generating High Value humans is a solvable problem. You have to spend money to make money.

That will take a decade per person.
If not more.

[Stormspellz]

Do you figure that Republicans have any argument or data that they'd reply with?

data? usually never, if they do its usually this one, lone economist says so because, well just because.

[Skroe]

That will take a decade per person.
If not more.

I'd get started then.

[Triks]

The IMF certainly does not believe that trickle-down economics works.

I skimmed through this. It's an interesting read and it highlights something I have been saying to my friends for the last couple of years - the countries that do well and have well-off citizens are the ones with functioning heavy industries. Take Norway for example, you could be a driller and make a good living or you could be a lawyer and also make a good living. I think this is something to consider.

[Stormspellz]

I also want to highlight an additional point: moving the tax burden to the State level to a large degree ends the thread's topic. Why? It's not like the top 0.1% live in Red States for the most part. Sure, there could be some moral wrestling over what the best tax rate is for the top 0.1%. But when the top federal tax bracket is taxed at say, 15% or something, it would be fighting over nickles and dimes. If Texas wants to tax the rich at a low rate compared to California... let them. And then when Texas has to cut services due to lower state revenues, Texas residents can punish their elected officials.

I think that's perfect fair.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep. Perfectly put.

The individual state has a lot power to lower/raise taxes already and in the case of Kansas, they just petition the federal government for more money, and then complain when they don't get it.

[Sunseeker]

Well, I think this serves as a reminder, I am a conservative. I am not a liberal, despite my making cause with liberals in wanting to see President Watersports do a perp walk before the decade is out. My post is what real conservatism looks like. It also works fantastically well in liberal Massachusetts, which is why Republicans can win here.

It's always easy to be conservative when you have money.

Secondly, I think we need to not be bound to definding success as every state succeeding the the same way. Massachuetts has a very vibrant tech sector. It suceeds in that way way. Alabama is essential to our space program, and if that were to grow under my budget vision (as it should), it would be the beneficiary of that while Massachusetts would not be. Broadbased national success comes from the sum of the DIVERSITY of success.

I don't think I implied that in my post. But each state should be posting success. A system that causes state A to succeed while state B fails is a system we do not need. But we likewise cannot get hung up on certain states being good at one thing either. Diversification of economies is good at all levels. It's why we make children study several different subjects instead of just sorting them into "math students", "english students" and so on.

EX: Wyoming (where I live) has a great coal and oil industry...assuming the international coal and oil industry is doing well. When it isn't, Wyoming has little to no economy at all, subsisting largely on agriculture and tourism. Hell some people still think we don't have running water here (the cattle rustlers are real tho). Wyoming needs to diversify. It won't of course unless someone pushes it to, which is the job of the Federal government. States that refuse to move out of their comfort zone, or out of the intractable mess they've created for them need to be forced out of it, for the benefit of themselves and the nation as a whole.

And just personally, I think states rights are a red herring. States, like Indian Reservations, should be eliminated entirely, the fact that you have borders doesn't provide an excuse to allow your state to languish because you can. "Local governance" should be, population-based. Any population center over the size of X would be given "territorial boundaries" based on its total population. When those boundaries hit another population center that's where you determine the end of that population center's services and the next begins. For ultra-rural areas they would simply be charged a "rural tax" for the nearest population center's services to be extended to them. Internal borders would move as the population changes.

Oh of course it will. Which is why you don't frame the argument as such in a political setting. The heart will win over the brain every time (something Democrats and anti-Trump people MUST remember in 2018 and 2020). There is a time and place for numbers. It's not in front of a crowd of everyday voters.

Mmhmm, okay then.

We have huge problems. But they're all solvable, and to be blunt, they're all the problems of success. We forget that in this country. We're talking about the best way to finance a social safety net.... because we're in a country that (1) is wealthy enough to have one that can support tens of millions of people and (2) are in a country has has a huge diversity of options in financing it. To put it simply, this are the problems we want to have.

In fact I'd say the tone and magnitude of our political disagreements at a national level comes from the fact that we're three, almost four generations of Americans removed from the last generation that knew any, real existential hardship.

Sure, but I'm really talking about the things we overlook while we're financing our social safety net. A social safety net is as you say a product of success, but it has problems because the things that created our success are going without repair. Our floundering school systems. Our infrastructure. Our social mobility. The social safety net came after we ensured that people were able to become successful. You can't have functional systems resulting from success if you can't ensure success to begin with. And we've let the ability for people to succeed erode to a point that frankly, I feel has put us in a dangerous position of people starting to believe that success is no longer possible and once people believe they cannot succeed, they never will and social safety nets will be completely meaningless.

[AndrewJackson]

I also want to highlight an additional point: moving the tax burden to the State level to a large degree ends the thread's topic. Why? It's not like the top 0.1% live in Red States for the most part. Sure, there could be some moral wrestling over what the best tax rate is for the top 0.1%. But when the top federal tax bracket is taxed at say, 15% or something, it would be fighting over nickles and dimes. If Texas wants to tax the rich at a low rate compared to California... let them. And then when Texas has to cut services due to lower state revenues, Texas residents can punish their elected officials.

I think that's perfect fair.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep. Perfectly put.

I agree! We should extend your proposal even further. Let's break down taxes paid and consumed by race and ethnicity also.

White taxpayers can't care more about a black child than black taxpayers can. We should expect them to. And if black politicians fail their children, black voters will throw them the hell out. The problem is, right now, they just send their politicians back every year to do battle against our politicians, over what is, frankly, our money.

It's no coincidence that trust in goverment has been declining continuously since the New Deal period. Focus less on global warfare and more on national welfare. We can see how dividing your ideas are when applied to race. Maybe the top 1% want their own state so they can collect all the benefits of union while paying zero taxes.