[TruePolitics]

Why do conservatives seem to think that they're the only ones paying taxes?

[powertoolsculpture]

As for the far right I speak of I am sure you would know it, considering you have a quote by Rousas Rushdoony in your sig. I would say he is far right.

Not quite. Almost, but I would say he is too fond of Republicanism and Enlightenment philosophy to count; on top of that he's passed away some time ago and his son-in-law Dr. North has 'taken over'; and Dr. North is even more liberal-tarian than Rushdoonie was. On top of that, he's not representative of much of anyone; he's about 1000 miles to the right of even the Conservative Christian traditionalists.

If Rushdoonie were a monarchist I'd agree with you, I just think that popular government and liberal philosophy are too big a part of what being left-wing to put him anywhere but the center-right in terms of politics (he was an extremist in other ways, though).

The 'economic stuff' originated from Enlightenment liberalism; the only reason it isn't popular is become the left became the Government Party and now they don't want to hear that the Democratic State Sucks at Everything, Always Has, Always Will and Expanding the Franchise Makes It Worse Every Time, which is the damn truth.

Why do conservatives seem to think that they're the only ones paying taxes?

For the same reason liberals can't tell the difference between mine and thine.

[ralfy]

"The Misinformed Tea Party Movement"

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-pa ... ett_2.html

[Ecliptix]

I am a liberal and I don't hate rich people. My family is extremely wealthy, and last time I checked I only disliked my brother to any extent.

[Negotiator]

Of course he would. There is plenty of room for smart people to succeed and do it big.

Nope. And as you obviously didnt bother to read or answer the rest of my posting, thats all I have to say for now.

A modern Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't stand the slightest chance to succeed. Oh wait, Mark Zuckerberg is modern.

Thats exactly the newly forming market I was talking about. And personally I strongly hope this crap called "social networking" will vanish into nothingness again. Why exactly do people seriously believe its a good idea to give a privately owned company all this information about yourself ? As I am a programmer and very conscious about security, specifically computer security, I would never agree to that.

[...] According to liberals, luck of birth does not make someone deserve to be in the 1% of 1%. Only personal achievements, like what Steve Jobs did, can make someone deserve such a thing. [...]
Sure, part of it is luck. He was an orphan building circuit boards in his adoptive parent's garage, and I'm sure that luck factored into it somehow. But to suggest that luck of birth is equivalent to what someone like him accomplished is ridiculous and frankly also very petty.

I dont get your statement. I explained exactly why Jobs had the luck of being there at the right time. You just ignore my argument completely and suddenly talk about "riddiculous and very petty". That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

If you dont get my argument, ask about what you dont understand.

If you choose to ignore my argument, please stop answering. I really have no problem to agree to disagree. It would be nice to know WHY you disagree, but I'm kind of used to this sites weird behavior - when you point out things people they really dont want to hear, they just ignore you.

[...] I would maintain that there are very few Americans of any political flavor who believe wealth is something that can be deserved at all.

There are some very few conservatives who believe that there should be no welfare system at all and very few liberals who do not believe that we should have one but at the end of the day there are very few Americans who do not believe in a robust government safety net. The assertion that these universal differences between those who identify as liberal and those who identify as conservative are mostly a popular fiction.

Everyone deserves a modest wealth. Really everyone on the globe. Those who work harder deserve some more of it, in a fair amount. As long as its really their own work and not exploiting someone elses.

The issue is that rich people can "make money work". Which basically is a nicer way of saying, they can exploit others, simply because they have so much money.

A welfare state is required if you want to have a state that has human rights. Thus I'm not very interested in talking with people who oppose it.

Specifically, any human community, even the most primitive ones, are based on the core principle that the strong should help the poor. With a modern industrialized country, everyone is a dependent specialist into some job, thus a welfare state is necessary to guarantee your survival, as there is really no way any more to live self sustained. Even if many posters here seem to believe otherwise and if you point them out why they are wrong, they just ignore you, which I consider quite a funny behavior.

[...] We have a center-left party and a center-right party in this country. There are extremes on the left and the right that need to be kept in check which is why I think having a two party system is important. The problem is the Republican Party has in the past few years become less and less of a center-right party and more and more of a far right party. That is not healthy. We need a two party system in this country but we need a two sane party system. [...]

IMHO a country which has a majority vote system, and thus really only has two alternatives when you vote, is a very poor democracy, as the voter really doesnt have much choice.

I very much prefer proportional representation. This allows for more parties to matter, and it allows for new parties to form much faster when the old ones no longer do their job.

[...] I don't really mind Michigan's Republican governor Rick Snyder because he has tried a more moderate path and avoided the extremes of Scott Walker and John Kasich which many rank and file Republicans want. He understands that you will make no progress unless you can reach across the aisle. [...]

I dont think that actually is of any importance. In the end what will matter in political parties is always the logic of power. No matter what politicians tell you and I'm not saying they're lying - but, for example, no republican will help Obama with his social state reform, simply because in the history books, it would be Obamas archievement.

Thats why I oppose having only two parties. It doesnt go well with the logic of power that governs political decisions.

I also would like to point out that you seem to be obsessed with the "left-right" logic of politics too much. But in the end, there is really only problems and solution to problems.

[Andrew Mailen]

That's a harsh generalization. The liberals that dislike the rich may partly dislike them because they feel they own everything. I hear all too often from my college-aged friends, Mitt Romney owns everything it's horrible blah blah blah. When in reality he has been a part of a team that has kept some companies afloat.

Another reason may be that in America some of the illustrated examples of the rich are investors. Liberals don't like investors because there is a lower tax rate on investors. I'll use Governor Romney again. When he started investing in all of the companies he invested in he had to risk a lot of money that could have went away into thin air. He had to make a risk to get a reward. The risk worked out for him.

[Someone5]

why do Liberals hate the rich so much?

Because no one gets rich except through the labor of others.

Liberals point to the millions that I make. But never a word about how that money actually helps society.

You take from society then dole out some small portion of that back. So what?

I don't know of one wealthy person who keeps his money under his pillow, or in his basement.

We wouldn't need to borrow if you hadn't taken so much.

If I gave away all my millions today, and became like you, would that change America? The answer is no. Therefore, you need me to be wealthy, so I can keep paying your welfare.

Giving away your money would do little; allowing the system that supports your largesse to fall would do much. Liberals have a systemic objection, not an individual objection to your wealth. The problem is how you get wealthy, and how you maintain that wealth through a system tlited in your favor--not the fact that you have a lot of money.

I live in a mansion, where...

I have house help
Gardeners
security people
a driver
a pool person
a personal trainer
an accountant to do my taxes

Oh boy, you have the luxury of being able to hire people to degrade themselves for your whims. Why shouldn't we be jumping for joy to be a rich man's pool boy? Of course that ought to be our aspiration in life--to service you.

[UK Sam15]

In the UK, I'm not aware of Liberals hating the rich. If anything, by raising university fees to £9 000, they're giving the rich an easy university entry!

Personally, I'm not against the rich at all. You're doing it fine as well. As long as you're earning your money truthfully and legally, and are still providing well-paid jobs for people who work honestly, you should be fine.
Think: if you weren't rich, that'd be 12+ more unemployed.

[nucklepunche]

I live in a mansion, where...

I have house help
Gardeners
security people
a driver
a pool person
a personal trainer
an accountant to do my taxes

Somehow I don't think rik is really who he says he is. He writes so sloppily I really don't think anybody who writes that way could have become a millionaire in the first place. I think he's just talking about hypotheticals here. He's creating an imagined situation in his head, one that probably doesn't reflect his actual life. I'm not a "liberal" per se (but rik would probably assume I was, since I am not conservative) and the liberal he describes sounds more like a Marxist. I am glad we have rich people. It is simply absurd to act like anybody who doesn't want the rich paying an absolute bare minimum of taxes hates them anymore than if a leftist said that because I don't believe able bodied citizens should have the right to everything provided for them with no work requirements means I hate the poor. But some do. And some right-wingers think because I don't want a zero percent tax rate I must hate the rich. It's tough being a centrist.

[Drlee]

I know a lot of rich people and have never heard one of them refer to his/her house as a "mansion".

I have all that stuff:

I have house help.... wife
A gardner....wife
driver.....wife
pool woman.....wife
an accountant......Ed

[nucklepunche]

Honestly Ric sounds like he's auditioning for the role of Daddy Warbucks. An accountant is the only one a lot of them actually do have. I don't see too many butlers in black ties in the rich neighborhood of my city.

[othervoice]

why do Liberals hate the rich so much?

I am the make believe millionaire Liberals hate so much.

Liberals point to the millions that I make. But never a word about how that money actually helps society.

I don't know of one wealthy person who keeps his money under his pillow, or in his basement.

I am now going to set the stage for my logical argument with some upfront facts...

If I gave away all my millions today, and became like you, would that change America? The answer is no. Therefore, you need me to be wealthy, so I can keep paying your welfare.

OK, now I'm confused. You want me to remain rich so your welfare check continues to come in. But at the same time, you keep criticizing me for being rich?

Let's look at how I spend my millions.

I live in a mansion, where...

I have house help
Gardeners
security people
a driver
a pool person
a personal trainer
an accountant to do my taxes

So, here I am, a multi-millionaire, providing jobs for a dozen+ people.

What do you have against me creating jobs for people? At the end of the day, only the rich can employ people. I don't remember ever working for a broke person before, do you?

Furthermore,
I pay Hefty property taxes. More income for the government.

I own an expensive home theater system, with expensive 108 inch TV. This big spending helps the economy, and provides work for home automation people. Have you ever hired home automation people? Very unlikely. So but for me keeping them in business, they won't have a job.

I put money into the economy by purchasing expensive cars. I pay a disproportionate amount to register my Bentley, and Aston martins, which tear up the road the same as your Ford F-150. In other words, without me to shoulder the larger bill of road maintenance, you would be paying more to register your Ford F-150. But do you thank me for keeping money in your pocket? No. All I get is disdain.

I pay way more to get my Bentley serviced, washed, etc. Thus, I keep mechanics employed.

I stay at expensive hotel suites. This pumps money back into the economy. Without me, only motel 6 would exist.

Liberals love their iPhones, but hate the process that led to it's creation. Poor people don't make iphones.

I have the premium package for cable/satellite TV. This keeps TV companies in business. What do you have against me keeping the cable companies in business?

My private jet is parked in a hanger at the airport. This service costs me hundreds of thousands of Dollars annually. This is money going to fund the government. What do you have against me funding the government? Remember, that is where your welfare checks come from.

Furthermore, what do you have against me keeping airplane manufacturers in business?

I keep the rest of my money in banks. This helps make sure that there is money available when you want to borrow money. I'm also keeping bank employees employed, and keeping the building owner rich.

I fall in the top 1% or taxpayers, and I pay 42% of all the income tax collected by the government. Without me paying these huge taxes, how would you collect your welfare check? You can't. Seems to me you're biting the hand that feeds you.

Perhaps the most important point of all, is that wealthy Liberals like Pelosi, Obama, Al Gore, Soros, John Kerry, Oprah, have yet to give their money away to charity. If you Liberals really believe in wealth re-distribution, what better way to convince me than to show me?

At the end of the day, "wealthy Liberal" should be an oxymoron. Therefore, wealthy Liberals are all hypocrites.

Poor Liberals are hypocrites too, since I haven't heard any of you criticize the wealth of your rich counterparts. How come they haven't given their wealth away to help the poor like they preach?

The following are indisputable facts...

We cannot all be rich. True.
We can all be poor. True.
Only the rich can create jobs. True.

That means the only way for all of us to be equal like Liberals want, is if we all became poor. Everybody was equally poor in Communist Russia. They all were miserable because of it.

So, essentially by wanting to get rid of rich people, Liberals want all Americans to be poor equally. Why?

Liberals do not hate rich people, and we don't want absolute income equality. When too much money is concentrated at the top then you have less prosperity and opportunity for all. Right now the top one percent has more than a third of income and three quarters of all wealth. The average worker has seen his/her wages stagnate or decline for more than forty years. Thats not good for a free and prosperous society where most people would be middle class.

A 45% tax rate on the wealthy is not " taking it all." We need to get back to the idea of shared prosperity which allowed owners and major investors to get rich and those who work to be middle class. Market driven economies are essential for free people, but the only reason they work so well is due to progressive taxation, public education, labor unions, government programs, and sensible regulations. These things ensure opportunity and they spread the benefits of growth more widely.

[uggabugga]

Liberals don't hate rich people, they just need bucketfuls of cash to fund their entitlement programs. So they have to demonize them so people will accept looting the rich's bank accounts as a right and good thing to do.

I'm in my middle seventies. I began earning my own money selling the evening paper on a busy street intersection back in 1951 and have never been out of work since. I've never drawn unemployment or taken charity. I served in the military in Vietnam for one and a half years. I got a social security card in 1957. This was the beginning of my retirement fund. Now I get a check every month (really direct deposit) as payback for all those years of hard work. There are some Tea Party types who say that I am a "taker" and that my retirement is nothing more than an "entitlement". If the fund is suffering because not enough money is being paid into it then let's bring back the jobs that the free marketers send to China. That would do it...

If everything the TP guys say is true then I'd like to see a big shot CEO put on a street corner with a cardboard sign and no help from daddy. I'd like to see how long one of these pinky ring softies would last when they really were on their own. They make a lot of big talk about lifting one self by his own efforts. OK go prove it buddy. Live like Jesus for a while and show me how it's done when the system is rigged against you.

[Eran]

If everything the TP guys say is true then I'd like to see a big shot CEO put on a street corner with a cardboard sign and no help from daddy. I'd like to see how long one of these pinky ring softies would last when they really were on their own. They make a lot of big talk about lifting one self by his own efforts. OK go prove it buddy. Live like Jesus for a while and show me how it's done when the system is rigged against you.

Your presumptions about the likely history (not to mention physical characteristic of rich people is an excellent illustration of the point of the OP.

Most wealthy people today may have come from relatively-priviledged backgrounds, but have also worked hard to achieve their current status.

Generalisations and physical caricatures is characteristic of group-hate such as racism, Anti-semitism and homophobia. Those are no longer considered acceptable in today's society. But the demonisation of economically-successful individuals still is.

[redcarpet]

I only hate rich people with elitist attitudes, etc.

I'll praise them for saying and doing good things when appropriate.

[Heisenberg]

Generalisations and physical caricatures is characteristic of group-hate such as racism, Anti-semitism and homophobia. Those are no longer considered acceptable in today's society. But the demonisation of economically-successful individuals still is.

This is completely off the mark, and ignores the bigger picture. Wealthy individuals are not a problem in and of themselves. A system in which a tiny elite wields disproportionate economic and military power is. "Demonisation of economically-successful individuals" (by people who actually have no power to do anything about it) is just a byproduct of that problem. It is not in any way comparable to racism or homophobia, which are perpetuated by the ruling elite as a form of divide and rule.

[Eran]

It is not in any way comparable to racism or homophobia, which are perpetuated by the ruling elite as a form of divide and rule.

Actually, it is a precise parallel. You are correct that concentration of power is a problem. You are incorrect in identifying the source of that power.

The source of the power is government, being the only organisation in our society which can, with perceived legitimacy, initiate force, coerce or otherwise make people worse off than they would have otherwise been.

Without resorting to political influence, the richest person in the world cannot make me worse-off than I am now. Bill Gates can get me to do any number of things - for the right compensation. But only if I deem myself to be better off having accepted his offer. Government agents, however, can and routinely do make me worse off, by prohibiting activities I desire and forcing me to pay them taxes.

Having identified the political class as the true "ruling elite", it is very easy to see why rich-o-phobia (does anybody know of a properly classic-sounding name? plutophobia perhaps?) is a form of "divide and rule". After all, what better policy available to government officials than to find a convenient scape-goat on which to blame society's ills?

How is using Jews as a scape-goat in the 1930s qualitatively different than using the "rich" or the "1%" or "bankers" today? Note - I am not suggesting that there isn't a huge difference in degree between Nazi anti-semitism and current-day rich-o-phobia. But the process is very similar. All the way to the use of generalisations and physical caricatures, as demonstrated above.

[Heisenberg]

Having identified the political class as the true "ruling elite", it is very easy to see why rich-o-phobia (does anybody know of a properly classic-sounding name? plutophobia perhaps?) is a form of "divide and rule". After all, what better policy available to government officials than to find a convenient scape-goat on which to blame society's ills?

What?! The "political class" is indistinguishable from the capitalist class! Where do politicians need to get their backing from, to fund campaigns? Who has the power to influence bills, and to withdraw financial backing to politicians who don't play along? The incredibly wealthy. There is an old maxim that "economic power precedes political power" - how can someone with no means to run a campaign have any chance of becoming a member of the "political class"? Governments exist to enforce the will of the economic elite, and have done now for centuries. In the past, it was the aristocratic landed interests that wielded economic power; now it is the very wealthy business interests. Just as one example, a bill passed last year regarding financial regulation was essentially passed by Citigroup. Of the 85 lines in the bill, more than 70 reflected Citi's "recommendations" to ease regulations on their banking activities. How can you claim that the state apparatus is somehow distinct from the capitalist class is simply beyond me. With respect, the idea that simply removing "government" will remove the problem of wealthy lobby groups having political power strikes me as astonishingly naive.

[Eran]

Government power is the only tool that allows people of wealth to illegitimately use their money to further their interests.

Some wealthy people and many corporations do indeed use their money to influence political decisions in their own favour. So do politically-powerful organisations such as labour unions.

Political power alway had and always will attract opportunists who use their popularity, military strength, leadership abilities and yes, money, to further their interests.

The solution to the problem of exploitation and abuse associated with political power is to remove the power from politics. Nothing else will do.


Having said all of that, it is very obvious that anti-rich speech is often and regularly used by the political classes to explain away their own failings. That they also pass laws that benefit some of their wealthy clients and backers is besides the point.

[Truth To Power]

Why do conservatives seem to think that they're the only ones paying taxes?

Because they are the only ones whose taxpaying matters to them.