turbo-1 said:
It's quite predictable how these threads degrade, and it would be funny, if the arguments were not so inane and illogical.
Example: My nearest neighbors are tea-party supporters. He is now retired, but has never made more than $40K in a year, since he worked low-skill jobs in a tannery. His wife works a seasonal job, and they have her elderly mother dependent on them, so essentially, they pay no income taxes. Their son works only seasonal part-time jobs and his wife is an aide at the local hospital, plus they have two very young children to claim as dependents, so they pay no income taxes, either.
In contrast, my wife and I own more property than either of them, so we pay more property taxes, ~50% of which goes to pay for the public school system that educates the two little kids. How can these Tea-Partiers be so fearful of rolling back Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% if they can never be effected by the roll-back?
Because maybe they are against it on principle? One thing I don't get about many on the Left is they accuse the Right of being "selfish" and "voting for their own interest," but then they rail when lower-income people on the Right are against raising taxes on higher-earners. Not everyone votes according to how something will affect themselves, certain people do vote according to principle. These same Left, who think of themselves as "selfless" have no problem on voting for tax increases on people aside from themselves it seems.
Lies and distortions from the right, because these people can repeat a couple of slogans, but can't logically explain how they could possibly be effected by rolling back Bush tax cuts on the top 2%.
They could be affected if some of those top 2% are small businesses that pay those rates, and might end up having to lay off some people. However, the two main reasons I would think of for being against such increases are:
1) Principle. There's a saying that the politician who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. But sometimes Paul is principled.
2) Oftentimes, if the government increases revenues, they'll just increase spending even further. So many people are against any tax increase unless there would be a guarantee that the government would work to reduce spending or keep it controlled.
Still, it's pretty sad to see people at the bottom of the economic ladder carrying water for the wealthy on the far right, based not on rational self-interest, but ideology.
Yes, how DARE people vote on principle as opposed to strictly their own self-interest. I also find it hilarious to see a left-leaning guy railing about people
not voting for their self-interest!
The US cannot hope to grow its way out of these huge deficits by handing more tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals.
Arguing to not increase taxes is not the same as arguing for more taxes. IMO, we need to increase taxes on the poor and middle-income, not the "rich," because too many of the poor and middle-income pay zero federal income taxes right now.
As said before, there is no such thing.
Sadly, the same crowd that you see at rallies with "No Socialized Medicine" signs is also well-dotted with "Hands off My Medicare" signs, so although retirees seem to love Medicare, they think that government can't be trusted to provide an affordable insurance option for the masses. Disconnect, anyone?
They're right, because Medicare is unsustainable. If we try applying it to the masses, government rationing will result.
And yes, my neighbors have the "taxes=theft" slogan down pat, even though the income tax credits that they get more than erase any tax burden and in fact result in checks for money that they never paid in the first place. It's pretty sad.
Not really, as they're just stating a fact. The fact that they may not pay any federal income taxes due to the laws that have been passed by the federal government doesn't mean they can't support the argument that taxes equal a form of theft.
As long as US citizens are ill-educated and gullible, they will be susceptible to jingoism and posturing of politicians.
It is high time to simplify the tax code, and move to a more progressive system, in which high-income earners pay more in income taxes, and low-income people are not nailed with higher and higher sales taxes (a national sales tax is Herman Cain's favorite solution).
Two things:
1) You just said that many in the middle and lower incomes pay no federal taxes. Now you do a 180 and claim they are being made to pay more and more??
2) Herman Cain supports the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the federal income taxes, and has a way of providing a subsidy to the poorest who would struggle due to the sales tax. Nancy pelosi has talked about a VAT tax, if a VAT tax was implemented, who do you think would get hit the most? The poor and middle-income. In addition, all the revenue from the VAT would then make the Democrats clamor for a lot more spending, saying that any attempts to cut the budget are "ridiculous" as we have plenty of money now.
Low-income people have to spend most of what they earn, so they would have to pay the bulk of any national sales tax, reducing their buying power, and that would damage any positive effect that their consumption might otherwise have on our economy.
As said, the Fair Tax takes this into account and has a way of countering that. Also, there would be no more federal taxes.
BTW, during most of the last decade in which I could still work, I was comfortably in the top 2% of earners every year. I doubt that many (if any) of the right-wingers that mob the P&WA threads are in that bracket, so why parrot GOP talking points that are aimed to protect the wealthiest? It seems quite illogical, like British taxpayers fawning over the royal family.
Many on the Right vote according to principle, not self-interest. Many on the Left love to accuse the Right of being "selfish," but then when the Right vote in a completely unselfish manner, the Left rail because it undercuts their plans.