This is why:

__________________

First of all, it's a bit complicated, it's not the rich having more money that provides benefits.

Secondly, not all conservatives support such a philosophy, in fact, it's more of a politicized thing that the media loves to talk about.

For example me, while in a perfect world, yes it should be cut, I think the present tax rate on the wealthy should stay for now.

Lastly, while it's true that a certain tax rate provides the most revenue, government revenue is not everything. 50% tax rates would destroy the economy, the government would then raise spending and revenue would decline over time along with the economy. Then, we'd be in a worse fix. Higher tax rates and spending on the same revenue.

In fact, that's a more dramatic version of the situation we're in now.

Are you trying to tell me that the rich actually deserve the absurd amounts they make at the expense of the proletariat? The Bush tax cuts cost the nation $70 billion a year, almost twice the amount that the Republicans in the House keep trying to cut from discretionary spending.
As for tax increases on the rich impacting the economy, I fail to see how a tax increase on less than 1% of the population could have that big an effect; if it would, then I'd say that those people possess too much economic power (basically, a personal variant of "too big to fail").

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

Textbook Marxism. Why shouldn't people retain their own personal wealth? What right does someone who has played no part in obtaining something deserve to take part of it? It just provides a disincentive to work hard (And for every heiress who doesn't know jack about working, there is dozens of hard working rich people - who benefit the country via investment).

__________________

As an aside, can we please ban the use of the word 'proletariat'? Especially if we're using it to refer to everyone who's not part of the 1% earning more than 250k?


Nature has a funny way of evening these things out in the end. The Vanderbilt family were one of the wealthiest families in history, but the heirs and heiresses showed an aptitude in nothing except flinging away vast quantities of money and eventually the pot of gold ran out.


But let's not pretend that the Bush tax cuts are the reason America's in a debt crisis. The reasons go much deeper than that.

Edit to fix up the links/quotes

__________________
Faint as a will o' the wisp
Crazy as a loon
Sad as a gypsy serenading the moon

1. Who says you get to say that they have too much economic power? Thank god you don't. While I don't think much of how much executives are paid, it's not the government's business. No offence, but I'd say anyone who doesn't respect america's constitution and founding principles has too much voting power.

2. That 1% pays around 60% of america's taxes already. So yes, they should get to keep what they have.

3.The tax cuts leave money in the economy where the government can't mess it up. Spending cuts (even though the proposed cuts are pathetic) allow the government to operate responsibly on the money it has.

The reason we are in this fix is every time either of those beneficial things happen, big government fans on both sides of the aisle use the ridiculous argument that "we should raise taxes to offset this cut" and "raise spending to offset this increase."

"you wouldn't have to cut if you raised taxes" "If you hadn't lowered taxes we wouldn't have to cut"

The biggest issue with this philosophy is that if we had more revenue, the deficit wouldn't be reduced, they would spend more and just say "look the deficit hasn't grown!" then, when taxes hurt the economy, revenue falls and we have to do it again. That's what causes our vicious circle of big-government dependency. Why don't we just convert to communism and pay 90% taxes.

The only way to ween ourselves is by attacking taxes and spending at the same time. If spending would be cut 15% and taxes cut 7.5%, the economy would grow (or get worse slower) and the deficit would fall (or grow slower). Then over time we could keep doing more and eventually, we'd be America again.

EDIT:

Wow, how the heck can 16% of you guys be Marxist?

Ok, I guess we're coming at this from two very different angles. Do you believe that everyone has an equal chance to make it rich from the very beginning, that your fortune is made or lost based solely on your own personal merits or lack thereof, and that the vast majority of rich people made their money in a fair way? I don't believe any of those. The problem is that those beliefs are rather subjective, and that there's not really any statistics that would definitively prove or disprove them. Coming out of the recent economic depression, however, I have the mindset that the rich will do anything they can to gain more wealth at the cost of those less rich than them. According to the Harper's Index, 2 out of 5 millionaires in America do not "feel wealthy," which strikes me as completely out of perspective. This also stems from another belief that I have; people don't need extravagant mansions, 100-inch plasma TVs, sports cars that cost several hundred grand...and given the option, I wouldn't want any of them, either. We pay the leader of our country $400,000 per year, which to me is just about as high as salaries should ever need to go. There's no real use in having a billion dollars; you could live a comfortable life and never so much as dent a fortune like that.

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

I very much have an issue at trying to tell people what is too much for them - people should make their own choices and earn whatever amount they want too. It also depends on what your wealth is tied up in - Probably not as relevant to America as it is to Australia, but property prices in Australia have surged leading more people to the million dollar mark in assets, whilst actually leaving them no better off financially.

You've got the idea that the 'rich' are exploiting the 'poor' in order to gain wealth. Problem is that isn't how capitalism works. People don't sit around giggling about how they're going to make people suffer - They sit around and think about how they're going to make more money. Which is fair enough. They invest their money into X, they hire staff at price Y which provides the investor with a profit. This doesn't mean they are exploiting staff because they are making more profit than they are paying staff - the staff wouldn't even have a job if it wasn't for someone with capital deciding to use that capital to expand their wealth.

Personal merits/lack off are certainly a factor. There are not too many absolute brilliant math/science geniuses who are out tilling the fields these days.

__________________

The issue is that if people have less incentive to try to work hard, no chance of moving up the ladder, or for some, getting rich, then people don't work as hard.

You end up failing like EVERY COMMUNIST NATION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.

You can be poor like China, North Korea, Cuba, and the former soviet union. Or rich like the USA.

There will always be rich and poor. All you can do is slightly reduce the difference and move society, including the poor, down as a whole.

It's a simple choice: communism = eveyone's quality of life down or capitalism = everyone's quality of life moves up.

Now before you say the US is getting poorer and China is getting richer, here's my reply-in-advance:

That's only because China is moving right, and the US is moving left.

Isn't this recent economic repression a result of the rich being overly greedy and exploiting the lower classes? Low/middle-class people were pressed into loans that they couldn't reasonably afford to pay off and the rich purchased insurance so that they got money when the loan failed. On a smaller scale, look at all the hidden fees companies try to apply to people for bank accounts, credit cards, and such. Heck, ever tried to read through the dense legalese that contracts have in them? The rich always seem to gain the advantage. If you take out a loan to buy a house, pay 90% of it back, and then something unexpected happens and you're forced to foreclose, you lose the house, but don't get the 90% you payed back. If you work for a company and invent something patentable, the company gets the patent and all the associated royalties. Wherever you look, any time a profit is made, those at the top get to take their share before anyone lower down.

I'll tell you how capitalism works: it's a perfect system if the consumer has free access to all the pertinent information and, more importantly, actually bothers to use that information to make a smart choice. Neither of those are true for the American economy. Socialism is also a perfect system, again assuming perfect people who can actually be happy with being average. A practical economy has to run somewhere in the middle; without government intervention, we'd wind up with an oligarchy. Really, I think there are some choices the consumer should be able to make, and some that should be made for them--which is how our current system works. The consumer can't choose a product with known safety risks, as that product will already have been recalled. I guess I'm in the minority here in that I trust certified experts to make decisions for me, and will trust them over my own judgment so long as they can satisfactorily answer my questions (which any expert worth their salt can, in my experience).

__________________
Tahu 1000 - Former Member

I skimmed through that post as it's mostly garbage. No, the recent recession was a correction of artificial growth in the past, it would have started in 2001, but the government artificial put it off, and made it worse.

I could go into more detail about how the government caused the whole thing, but I don't want to type all day.

No one was forced into loans, most of those people decided to purchase homes they couldn't afford. It's their fault. It's horrible I'll agree, but still their fault.

Now, as far as hidden fees and such, that's wrong, however, ignoring the fact that many of them are caused either directly or indirectly by the government, the government is far worse.

What about all the hidden fees and taxes the government forces us to pay so they can have money to waste?

As an example of hidden fees forced on us by the government, consider this:

About 10 years ago I opened up a savings account. I'm young so the balance has grown very slowly, however, in the past year or two, I've handled my own finances more directly.

I've been enjoying capitalism by selling on ebay, however, I didn't want much money in my paypal account, so I always kept the balance at $0 when I could by depositing in my savings.

Now, our favorite socialist Mr. Barrack Obama's reforms did something very unexpected. My account's terms of use changed and suddenly I find myself owing $38. Why? Because I made more than 3 withdrawals in one quarter or year or whatever. I was extremely angry as believe it or not, that's two months of income for me.

My father did some research and found out that the government now required it under Obama's reforms. God, and probably Obama's campaign contributors know why, but I don't.

Of course that doesn't include the $65 yearly hidden tax (inflation) on my account.

Socialism is NOT a perfect system AT ALL, under ANY realistic circumstances, it is a HORRIBLE system. If you don't like america and it's ways, move to the UK or Canada. Or Mexixo (they seem to be doing well ).

That idea terrifies me. You argue against it yourself. People will always have their own motives, insurance agents are experts, but they don't work for you.

The consumer should make their own decisions. At this point it's not a matter of opinion, if you want to take away my rights by having others make my decisions you are WRONG. I'll make my decisions and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

Of course within reason, I shouldn't be able to decide to kill. However, I should pick what I eat, who I sell services to, what car I drive, what job I have, what school I go to, where I live, what I say, what websites I make (within reason), what procedures are done on me, how long I sleep, what I wear, what products and services I buy, how much money I donate, and what weapons I use for sport (within reason).

-----

Now, who decides within reason? Liberals often ask for reasonable regulation. Opinions differ. That's why regulation should be a bit on the light side instead of the heavy side.

-----

Yes, I should be able to buy products with known safety risks as long as I'm made aware.

-----

Yes you are in the minority, but listen. I have no problem with you listening to experts advice, or even allowing them to decide. However, it has to be the consumer's choice. They can't be forced to obey the experts.

Please explain to me how Obama is a socialist.

Anyway, I'm far left centrist. I live in Canada and obviously we're not governed by any leftist party but rather by conservatives. I will say this, the Canadian conservatives have handled the economy quite well so kudos to them. So realistically speaking, I'm for right wing beliefs in handling the economy but on the flip side, I'm also for many social services, government regulations, workers' rights (equal appropriation of profit made), free post-secondary education, universal health care, and welfare (as long it's for the working poor and not the lazy poor).

__________________

Props to steve-loser on the old sig.

Name all of them.

__________________

Imagine a perfect beach
Without a mermaid
Imagine a perfect hideaway
Without a time
Imagine a perfect Eden
Without a friend, without a serpent
"Feeling lonely and content at the same time,
I believe, is a rare kind of happiness"

Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Kyrgystan, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany (East), Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia Slovenia. ), China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Yemen.

__________________

If anything, you just named countries that were under the guise of communism and are most likely forms of dictatorship or pseudo-socialism. A communist state has no government.

__________________

Props to steve-loser on the old sig.

Like it or not, America's current system of Government was brought about by democratically elected leaders. Furthermore, the democrat party have acted completely on their manifesto, meaning they have both a legal and moral mandate to do what they have.

If you don't like it, why don't YOU move?

__________________


"What? Men dodging this way for single bullets? What will you do when they open fire along the whole line? I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."- The last words of General John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in the American civil war

Umm, that's not true at all. There has to be some sort of powerful organization to enforce the system.



Now here's what you are referring to:



However, it has to be controlled by the state, because individuals won't self enforce a system the dislike.

Does this apply to the Republican party's mandate in November of '10?



1. Is there any nation that is less corrupted and leftist? I love America and there's really no other choice. There are plenty of communist and socialist nations, and very few do well at all.

2. America was founded by capitalist small government, pro-liberty individuals. Our constitution guarantees many aspects of the system I want. Unconstitutional acts of law that violate are illegal.