Why is Joe Six Pack so concerned about millionaires getting taxed more?

[Rman]

With Obama's plan to increase the income tax rates on high income households, I'm sure you'll see a few Fox News soundbites with some tool complaining that we're taxing the rich too much as it is.  When did this happen?  When did middle and even lower class people become so concerned about millionaires's nest eggs?  Is the right wing noise machine that pervasive?

It reminds of the health care debate.  You'd hear soundbites of uninsured, lower class Republicans almost mention with pride that they don't have health care and that they're not subsisting on the government's teat.

Is this illusion that everyone will become a millionaire that pervasive?

[BlueTsunami]

They've seemingly hammered into their base that taxing anyone (privileged, fortunate, worked for it or not) is oppressive for everyone. One could probably work the line "The greatest trick the devil ever played..." in this scenario.

[Van Cruncheon]

i suspect it is more that they believe that the millionaires' money will be given by the government to lazy neighbors, "druggies", and black people with their weird music and ebonics

more specifically, they are miserable, and would rather have elite monied overlords than have the rest of their suffering peers get an opportunity and possibly have a chance to be MORE successful than them. misery prefers LOTS AND LOTS of company

[Rman]

Ah yes, "wealth distribution"

But their argument fails on grounds that they want to pair down the deficit, which GOP just now wants to do, even though Bush and his Republican controlled Congress presided over one of the biggest expansions of the federal government.

[BlueTsunami]

There's also "job creators"!





 

[Himu]

why is america, as a country, in terms history so anti-tax? aren't rights and equality more important than being taxed?

[Great Rumbler]

There's also "job creators"!

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

 

This is by far the best argument for increasing the tax rate on large corporations and billionaires.

[Human Snorenado]

IF YOU HURT THOSE POOR JOB CREATORS' FEELINGS THEY'RE GONNA GO GALT AND LEEEEEEEEAVE US

[Diunx]

I'm pro tax cuz it means more companies outsourcing back office shit to this lovely island  

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/

A pretty good article (well, two in one) that seems to describe the situation pretty well.

[Madrun Badrun]

i suspect it is more that they believe that the millionaires' money will be given by the government to lazy neighbors, "druggies", and black people with their weird music and ebonics

more specifically, they are miserable, and would rather have elite monied overlords than have the rest of their suffering peers get an opportunity and possibly have a chance to be MORE successful than them. misery prefers LOTS AND LOTS of company

I agree that they don't think they will benefit from it.  There are many people that think that government gives nothing positive to their lives.  I don't mean in a philosophic sense, they just really have no idea who pays for all the programs they don't think they use.

[Mr. Gundam]

There are also a ton of people who (wrongly) believe that they will be millionaires one day.

[Mr. Gundam]

Disturbing, but I kind of agree with it. Sad but true.

[CrystalGemini]

i suspect it is more that they believe that the millionaires' money will be given by the government to lazy neighbors, "druggies", and black people with their weird music and ebonics

This is most of what I hear from people.

A lot of the Republican quips shown on TV feed into an idea that Obama/Gobernmunt don't know the American people, and that the American people don't want handouts, and that the handouts only go to the bad Americans(by which they mean those OTHER poor people), and that Americans are good people. When they say good people, they mean overworked and struggling.

[AdmiralViscen]

Let's raise taxes so government construction workers can stand around on the side of the road!

[AdmiralViscen]

why is america, as a country, in terms history so anti-tax? aren't rights and equality more important than being taxed?

Seems a really odd question, particularly in how you worded it.

America, as a country, was in historical terms partly born from resistance to excessive taxation...  Yes, I know, every time I have this back and forth I hear "no taxation without representation..."  And fair enough... but do you seriously think giving Ben Franklin a spot in the Parliament of Great Britain would have made everyone happy about the situation?  The colonists wouldn't have been any happier if taxes stayed the same, which they would, because the people and Parliament of Great Britain by and large didn't think the taxation of the American colonies was excessive.  The American colonials disagreed, of course.

Furthermore, rights and equality are very much in question when talking about the fairness of a nation's method of taxation. 


There is a long-running, divisive philosophical and ethical conflict at hand.  Dismissing it as delusional expectation of personal financial windfalls or crude racism may or may not be fun to you guys, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.


Cheers.

This does 0 to answer the original question. In your example, the colonists were being taxed in a way they thought was excessive. The question in this topic is why people who are going to see their taxes stay the same or even be reduced, are up in arms over the taxes of someone who makes 10x as much as they do seeing their taxes increased to something less than Reagan levels.

[Van Cruncheon]

There are also a ton of people who (wrongly) believe that they will be millionaires one day.

i used to think this, but then i realized it's the converse: they abjectly believe they are worthless and will never be millionaires, they just don't want some smart-ass know-it-all successful liberal with a happy sidehugging marriage tell them they can't be one. they are serfs through and through.

[Human Snorenado]

I think the more apt descriptor is that they're House Negroes.  "Yes Massa, you deserve yoself a nice new yacht!"

[Rman]

This does 0 to answer the original question. In your example, the colonists were being taxed in a way they thought was excessive. The question in this topic is why people who are going to see their taxes stay the same or even be reduced, are up in arms over the taxes of someone who makes 10x as much as they do seeing their taxes increased to something less than Reagan levels.

Furthermore, rights and equality are very much in question when talking about the fairness of a nation's method of taxation.  [/b

I don't want to see the tax code become even less equitable.  

Such progress has been made.  Stop trying to bring back the 1940s.  





 

Forgetting about the issue of tax rates.  Loopholes are a bigger a problem.  Even the alway classical liberal rag--The Economist--suggested the US could do a better job of collecting taxes by closing many of the loopholes, both personal and corporate.

That's why just complaining about the rates going to pre-Bush levels, seems myopic.

[Himu]

why is america, as a country, in terms history so anti-tax? aren't rights and equality more important than being taxed?

Seems a really odd question, particularly in how you worded it.

America, as a country, was in historical terms partly born from resistance to excessive taxation...  Yes, I know, every time I have this back and forth I hear "no taxation without representation..."  And fair enough... but do you seriously think giving Ben Franklin a spot in the Parliament of Great Britain would have made everyone happy about the situation?  The colonists wouldn't have been any happier if taxes stayed the same, which they would, because the people and Parliament of Great Britain by and large didn't think the taxation of the American colonies was excessive.  The American colonials disagreed, of course.

Furthermore, rights and equality are very much in question when talking about the fairness of a nation's method of taxation. 


There is a long-running, divisive philosophical and ethical conflict at hand.  Dismissing it as delusional expectation of personal financial windfalls or crude racism may or may not be fun to you guys, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.


Cheers.

this doesn't answer my question AT ALL

[Phoenix Dark]

So Dubya what are your thoughts on this
[youtube=560,345]htX2usfqMEs[/youtube]

[Mandark]

I thought fisking wasn't allowed on this forum.

A rule I tried to implement without the backing of a central authority, giving us this tragedy of the commons.

[Boogie]

I thought fisking wasn't allowed on this forum.

A rule I tried to implement without the backing of a central authority, giving us this tragedy of the commons.

Hey, I'm pretty sure I've gone a year or so since I last fell off the wagon.

[Human Snorenado]

I don't really see what the problem w/ fisking is as long as someone who isn't boring as fuck like the experiment isn't the one doing it.  sorry the experiment.

[Mr. Gundam]

My problem with fisking is that it seems to derail conversations/debates ~99% of the time. It's not so much an organizational tool as it is a way to pick something apart so much that the original intent is lost.

[demi]

I don't recall frisking being approached to upper management.

[demi]

I'm ok with safe fisting. By Joe Beer Keg

[Van Cruncheon]

I don't see what the big deal is, oooh he's directly responding to an argument point by point. How rude? I don't get it. If you're putting something forward in a debate driven thread, be prepared for it be debated. I for one find "fisking" to be a good organizational tool.

It gives readers a more expanded view of the competing ideas, allowing them to evaluate each better. For example in this situation I'd say NotGreenShinobi hit the logic ball out of the park.

hahahahahahahaha people reading detailed responses on the internet hahahahahahahahah

[Mandark]

Fisking is for when you don't want to bother with organizing or emphasizing your thoughts in a coherent manner.

As for the OP, generally people do want to see the rich get taxed more; iirc, it polls surprisingly well even among Republicans.  It's just that a lot of people think The Government is taking Their Money to give to Lazy People who don't deserve it.  They think lower taxes, or a conservatarian approach to taxes, will benefit them.  In a lot of cases this isn't true, but there's a ton of ignorance and outright cognitive dissonance on how that money gets spent and who's benefiting.

A ton of people don't consider their Medicare benefits, SS checks, or mortgage deductions to be government benefits, think that foreign aid is ~25% of the budget, and believe that Obama raised their taxes.  So even if they think the rich are being coddled a bit, they're more viscerally angry with welfare queens and get so much bad information that they don't have an accurate picture of the world anyways.

Though I feel like I shoulda shut up and read this before commenting.

[MrAngryFace]

the 'if EVERYONE' paid a dollar argument michelle was going on about made me lol- I wonder how many citizens she thinks the USA has

[Phoenix Dark]

the 'if EVERYONE' paid a dollar argument michelle was going on about made me lol- I wonder how many citizens she thinks the USA has

Cain said that, not Michelle. Her tax plan was "you should keep every dollar you make. The government of course has to get some of it though." Truly a balanced plan!

Cain is the 999 dude. So a flat 10% for everyone

[MrAngryFace]

666?

[Van Cruncheon]

Fisking is for when you don't want to bother with organizing or emphasizing your thoughts in a coherent manner.

more importantly, it's when you don't want to commit to putting an argument of your own out there that could get fisked in turn by rival pedants. fisking ruins internet conversations, as it allows the fisker to completely fragment the greater thrust of a discussion while not commiting to an overarching argument of their own.

[Van Cruncheon]

I don't see why conservatives always go for a flat tax.  Why not just break it down and say every man woman and child pays the exact same thing.  So a family of four would owe the government around 56000 based on the 2011 budget.  Seems to me the only truly fair way to do it.

many libertarian conservatives -- and many conservatives in general, now that i think of it -- are obsessed with a reductivist dogma for economic and social decisions, as though society and human nature should be expressed as a set of simple and preferably deuteronomical rules.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

"all abortions are bad, all the time" HERE WE GOOOOOO

[close]

[Brehvolution]

Do we live in a caste system?

[Phoenix Dark]

[youtube=560,345]2upNNFLoA_Y[/youtube]

[Mandark]

Fisking is for when you don't want to bother with organizing or emphasizing your thoughts in a coherent manner.

more importantly, it's when you don't want to commit to putting an argument of your own out there that could get fisked in turn by rival pedants. fisking ruins internet conversations, as it allows the fisker to completely fragment the greater thrust of a discussion while not commiting to an overarching argument of their own.

This.  So much this.  What attracted me to arguing with shit over the net was how it forced me to refine and clarify my beliefs, and fisking prevents that from happening.

JayDubya to rich guy, use your search engine:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+treasury+online+payments

Mandark to libertarian: win an election. 

[Human Snorenado]

Personally, I don't think it's such a big deal to fisk someone as long as you also present some sort of argument on your own in a later paragraph or something.  If someone's statements can't stand up to a point by point rebuttal then it's a pretty shitty statement to begin with... sort of along the lines of "they exist because they do" for example.

[Phoenix Dark]

Personally, I don't think it's such a big deal to fisk someone as long as you also present some sort of argument on your own in a later paragraph or something.  If someone's statements can't stand up to a point by point rebuttal then it's a pretty shitty statement to begin with... sort of along the lines of "they exist because they do" for example.

you mean like "something out of nothing" ie evolution?

[Barry Egan]

"something out of nothing" is what the opposition says a scientist would say about evolution.

"they exist because they do"  is the axiom upon which Jaydubya sincerely defends his own political ideology.

[Human Snorenado]

How so?

 

[Human Snorenado]

I think what you find appealing about arguing over the intertubes is that it constantly reinforces your myopic, reality-divorced views on things. 

SUNSHINE!  PUPPIES!  FREEDOM!

[Van Cruncheon]

hey, at this point, i just want the lulz that comes from the threat of a populist uprising -- a healthy reminder that humanity is irrational and this "coercion" so loathed by arch, finger-waggling liber-effetes is a fundamental part of our social nature, and that human society is born of a myriad of competing, contradictory contexts rather than some deterministic set of principled absolutes

how quickly we forget that we are the immediate scions of the animal kingdom!

[MrAngryFace]

trollan

[Phoenix Dark]

Many on the right were incensed by the exchange. Why? Well, obviously because the guy who asked the question wants higher taxes on the rich and conservatives disagree. But as it turns out, there’s more to it than that — some are arguing that if this individual wants to voluntarily contribute more to the treasury, he should do so, but people like him and Warren Buffett should leave other wealthy people out of it.

It’s worth pausing to appreciate how ridiculous the argument really is. We’re a massive, modern nation with a vast economy. We face real challenges, and they’re not the kind of challenges individuals can hope to resolve on their own — we need cooperative solutions built around shared action.

Making taxes voluntarily — asking for a little more only from those willing to pay a little more — is absurd.

The GOP’s nonsensical talking points notwithstanding, it’s good to see wealthy individuals stepping up and making the case for more tax fairness. I don’t imagine that will persuade congressional Republicans — nothing seems to persuade congressional Republicans — but it’s a sentiment the public benefits from hearing anyway.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/quote_of_the_day_would_you_ple032446.php

[Phoenix Dark]

Needless atomic strike on Japan? Not this shit again

[Human Snorenado]

Also, don't forget that LBJ had the nerve to make white people let black people into their diners and ride on their buses and shit.  THE FUCKING TEMERITY.

[Phoenix Dark]

LBJ will always be a question of how much good does it take to out-weight bad/evil. He passed a lot of great economic/social legislation and stood against many within his own party to get the Civil Rights Act passed... but on the other hand he escalated a war on false pretenses which tore the country apart and killed a shit ton of people around the world.

If not for Vietnam he'd probably be considered one of the greatest presidents; instead people continue to give his accomplishments to JFK.

[Boogie]

and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.

*twitch* *twitch*

[Oblivion]

talking responsibility for the Gulf of Tonkin deception and escalation of Vietnam, and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.

The best part about this is that causing the deaths of MILLIONS of people is STILL not as bad as the infinitely more offensive act of creating social security.*


JD, I'm curious. I have a fairly good idea where you stand on certain things, but I still have some questions. I know that you're a pretty staunch libertarian, but are you one of the "Amurrica, FUCK YEAH!" types that have an immense pride in the U.S. for its contributions to its people as well as the world? Or are you the kind that doesn't care much about flag waving, and is just satisfied with trying to maximize your own financials?


*Assuming JD is actually being serious about FDR being the worst president ever, and not just trolling.

[Boogie]

The best part about this is that causing the deaths of MILLIONS of people is STILL not as bad as the infinitely more offensive act of creating social security.*

*Assuming JD is actually being serious about FDR being the worst president ever, and not just trolling.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that JayDub assigns a certain amount of blame to FDR for "pushing" the US into World War II, that the US should have stayed out of the war, and therefore also causing many deaths in addition to the evil of social security.

[Mandark]

and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.

*twitch* *twitch*

I know the feeling, man.  Remember last page when he explains how "taxation" is the operative word and "without representation" is just a grace note?

[Boogie]

You can (and Boogie would) try to justify the selection of civilian targets because, because total war and the Japanese were totally not going to surrender otherwise and other such things that I generally consider to be a steaming load.

If your objection is to the targeting of civilian centres, then your criticism should be directed towards strategic bombing in general as practised in WWII, and there should be no real reason for singling out the two atomic bombs for particular revulsion.

But of course, it's never "Strategic bombing in the Second World War was wrong!" but always "dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was wrong!"

Also, civilian target:

During World War II, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."

[Boogie]

Not a bad point, and it's not like the allied bombing of Dresden or Tokyo earlier in 1945 were much more moral.

Okay then.

  In this I think I largely agree with Eisenhower, and as I've seen you debate this 80 bazillion times on GAF I'm sure I don't even need to cite the quotes in question, because you've probably read them a dozen times.

Well then, if I've debated it 80 bazillion times, I can simply say that this:

asking only for a concession that was readily given.

is wrong, in the words of the Japanese diplomats and supreme war council members themselves, as the MAGIC intercepts revealed.

Or the words of Prime Minister Suzuki himself:  "The Supreme War Council . . . was making every possible preparations to meet [an American] landing.  They proceeded with that plan until the Atomic Bomb was dropped, after which they believed the United States would no longer attempt to land when it had such a superior weapon--that the United States need not land when it had such a weapon; so at that point they decided that it would be best to sue for peace."

But sure, keep on telling yourself that prior to the bombs Japan was willing and attempting to surrender under terms of Unconditional Surrender + the survival/exception of the status of the Emperor.  That's not reality.

Eisenhower was a general fighting on the opposite side of the world.  His quote is moral support to your side, but has nothing to do with the actual arguments involved.  It is factually incorrect on the Japanese willingness to surrender.

[Phoenix Dark]

At this point, asking Boogie to re-iterate WWII/atom bomb beat downs is akin to asking Gary Coleman to say "whatchu talkin bout Willis." Always entertaining

[Boogie]

In my uninformed, pacifist opinion, we could have allowed the Japanese to surrender conditionally. It's always seemed to me like a fight where one guy has the other guy pinned on the ground, but breaks his arm because he won't say uncle.

I could be wrong about that though, so whatever.

I believe that there are, essentially, only two reasonable and defensible arguments against the atomic bombings, given the historical record.

The first is, as I said, if you broaden the argument to say that strategic bombing generally is immoral and/or unnecessary.  In which case, of course, the argument isn't really about the atomic bombs any more.

The second is to take the position that the Allied demand for unconditional surrender (with the caveat of the Emperor's survival) was itself unreasonable.

I, however, would still argue strongly that unconditional surrender was a rational, reasonable, and necessary demand.

You have to consider the context.  In 1945, the world had been driven to not one, but two devastating global conflicts in the span of thirty years.  The Allies were not *just* fighting the Second World War.  They were also fighting to make sure that they wouldn't fight the Third World War thirty years down the road.

What is the alternative to unconditional surrender?  That, after invading Okinawa, the United States simply "walks away", saying "good game guys, you fought hard, but so long."?  Completely unnacceptable.  That would leave in place the Japanese militaristic regime, that completely dominated the existing political system, and would risk Japan rebuilding with the same sense of revanchism that Germany developed between the wars, and thirty years later you would still have a Japanese regime that was militaristic and expansionist.

No, the demand for unconditional surrender was a rational policy and, as horrific as they were, it was the atomic bombs that shocked the Japanese leadership into accepting it and allowing for a smooth transition.


edit:  Or, to continue with your awkward analogy, you didn't break his arm *just* because he wouldn't say uncle, but because he was still struggling, and had every intention of standing up and slugging you from behind if you just got up and walked away.  Or of nursing his wounds and going back to beating up the smaller kids in his neighbourhood after you walked away.

[Human Snorenado]

talking responsibility for the Gulf of Tonkin deception and escalation of Vietnam, and you're talking the needless and deliberate atomic bombing of civilian targets in Japan.

The best part about this is that causing the deaths of MILLIONS of people is STILL not as bad as the infinitely more offensive act of creating social security.*


JD, I'm curious. I have a fairly good idea where you stand on certain things, but I still have some questions. I know that you're a pretty staunch libertarian, but are you one of the "Amurrica, FUCK YEAH!" types that have an immense pride in the U.S. for its contributions to its people as well as the world? Or are you the kind that doesn't care much about flag waving, and is just satisfied with trying to maximize your own financials?


*Assuming JD is actually being serious about FDR being the worst president ever, and not just trolling.

My personal view on JD is that he believes certain things are True, and that those things take precedence over old people dying penniless in the streets or poor people starving.  It's not that he's a bad guy- he advocates people using charity!  But taking a privileged honkey's money and giving it to someone else is tyranny, ya dig?

[Boogie]

Can you recommend any good books on this subject, Boogie?

Downfall, by Richard B. Frank is pretty much the essential work on the position of the necessity/justification of the bombings. 

[Brehvolution]

Btw, I hate the word "entitlements" when it's used to refer to our social programs. It carries the mental image of some entitled child demanding something he doesn't deserve.

Entitlements is word play the gop came up with to target medicaid and SS without being specific about it. But since we pay money out of our paychecks into these programs, let's call them what they really are... 'EARNED BENEFITS'! I have to correct my father in law about this all the time and he fucking collects SS!!!!! I know he is just talking about the lazy blacks though.

[Human Snorenado]

Occupy Wall St. is about to get REAL. 

Russell Simmons is throwing down with the protsesters oh snap