U.S. Politics - a tale of two conventions

[TerraPrime]

Yup.

[The Iceman of the North]

You gotta be joking TP. How can you make such an outrageous claim with a straight face?

[TerraPrime]

You gotta be joking TP. How can you make such an outrageous claim with a straight face?

I know not what this "straight" face you speak of. Begone, s'aitan.

[Guest Raidne]

Bringing these in out of the black President thread for a response:

...the conservative viewpoint is one opinion. So is the faking of the moon landing. All opinions are not created equal in value, and that's more of what DG is getting at. Supporting low taxes on the rich has been shown to be a bad deal, as an example - and that has nothing to do with invasion of the uterus or being a bigot.

I didn't say low taxes for the rich, I said low taxes. A conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder. That is not an opinion I can dismiss out of hand. It might be right and it might be wrong, but it's not equivalent to faking the moon landing. Is that agreed upon or no?

And I'm not a fan of the Democrats as custodians of liberalism, either. They are the errand boys of the wealthy as well. I'd just prefer to not be subject to Christianist anti-science horseshit while my future is being sold off to the banking, energy, and defense industries.

I imagine that however much Christianist anti-science horseshit bothers many Republicans, it probably bothers them less than being characterized as people who want to sell of the future to the banking, energy, and defense industries because they don't like seeing the government raise an entire historic Polish community to build an unsuccessful GM plant.

[Fez]

I didn't say low taxes for the rich, I said low taxes. A conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder. That is not an opinion I can dismiss out of hand. It might be right and it might be wrong, but it's not equivalent to faking the moon landing. Is that agreed upon or no?

Good thing everyone (except non-working, non-capital holding individuals in states without a sales tax; and even then there's usually something) does pay taxes then, isn't it?

ETA: I've got good news for Ser Scot, the ninth circuit has overturned a district judge's ruling that Nevada could no longer have "none of the above" on the ballot. One of judge's issued a hell of a beatdown to the district judge in a concurring opinion; its a fun read, ending with:

Such arrogance and assumption of power by one individual is not acceptable in our judicial system.

[TerraPrime]

Good thing everyone (except non-working, non-capital holding individuals in states without a sales tax; and even then there's usually something) does pay taxes then, isn't it?

Only income tax and cap gain tax are "real" tax, don't you know?

[The Progressive]

A conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder. That is not an opinion I can dismiss out of hand.

Why can't you?

The conservative who told you that is either really disingenious/sloppy/ignorant because the fact is that everybody pay some sort of taxes, be that sales/income/property/etc.

[DanteGabriel]

I imagine that however much Christianist anti-science horseshit bothers many Republicans, it probably bothers them less than being characterized as people who want to sell of the future to the banking, energy, and defense industries because they don't like seeing the government raise an entire historic Polish community to build an unsuccessful GM plant.

I'm saying both parties are selling us out, Raidne, but the Democrats don't have the Christianist component to their policies.

What's this about historic Polish communities and GM plants?

[TerraPrime]

Why can't you?

The conservative who told you that is either really disingenious/sloppy/ignorant because the fact is that everybody pay some sort of taxes, be that sales/income/property/etc.

I think what that suggestion says to me is that they're sort of Heinlein-ish - they have identified the problem correctly, but their solution doesn't address it.

Yes, there's a group of people who do not feel that they are stakeholders in the political process. However, the way to fix that is not to make them pay into the system. The way to fix it is to stop marginalizing them in the first place, i.e., remove reduce the influence of money on politics. If we insist that money buys political access (see Citizens United), then you are absolutely going to have a group of people who feel that they don't have a say, because they don't. If we shorten the gap of power differential between the two groups, you will, I predict, get more people to think of themselves as stakeholders, whether you make them pay 5% of their income in tax, or not.

[Shryke]

I didn't say low taxes for the rich, I said low taxes. A conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder. That is not an opinion I can dismiss out of hand. It might be right and it might be wrong, but it's not equivalent to faking the moon landing. Is that agreed upon or no?

I find the argument silly mostly because it assumes it's the people paying more taxes who feel more like stakeholders in society.

When it actually seems to work the other way around. It's those who receive the most benefits (or the most obvious benefits) from society who feel they have the most stake in government.

It seems more that it is the rich and the upper middle-class and such, people who pay more money (though not a greater percentage of income), who are the least likely to feel like the government is useful or necessary.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Bringing these in out of the black President thread for a response:

I didn't say low taxes for the rich, I said low taxes. A conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder. That is not an opinion I can dismiss out of hand. It might be right and it might be wrong, but it's not equivalent to faking the moon landing. Is that agreed upon or no?

I actually have a lot of sympathy for this position. I completely understand the argument that everybody pays taxes. I got it. Trust me. I really do. However, to think about the issue more specifically:

1. We have a Federal system. Therefore there are different levels of government. Sales taxes are state and local taxes, not National taxes. I would like people to pay some amount at every level. Consumers don't "feel" sales taxes in the same way as income taxes - they are part of the purchase price of the goods and services they use every day. Yes, it's an add-on. Yes, it counts. But it doesn't hit all the points that I think are necessary to get the result Raidne alludes to.

2. But, you say, everybody who works pays Medicare and Social Security Taxes. True. Absolutely true. I do not deny this at all. Nor do I deny that it's a reduction to take home pay which in some sense "feels" like a tax. However, those taxes, at least notionally, support services/payments to which the payor will later be directly entitled. It's not a payment that's (again, notionally) going to the general fund.

3. I am personally very ok with a progressive income tax system. It SHOULD be progressive. (I'm not ok, btw, with a capital gains preference, but that's a complete digression). Nor do I think that the "wealthy" (high-income earners/tax payers) have "more" of a stake in government and the political process. I think Shryke definitely has a point that people who benefit more from services provided by government may feel like they have a larger stake in government. But, in fact, in this sense the progressive income tax is a wealth transfer, which means that people benefitting from the transfer as a result of particular programs do feel more invested in the continuation of those particular programs, and people whose money net goes away from them, without getting what they feel is a corresponding benefit, might make them feel less invested in the process. Having a "price of entry" at all levels of government, I think might be a positive thing to make sure that the "stake" felt in government on both sides of the transfer equation is felt.

*Takes cover in 50s era nuclear shelter*

[The Progressive]

I'm absolutely on board with the "price to entry" idea as long as we couple that with the removal of the "cap on contribution" on federal taxes like Medicare or SS.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm absolutely on board with the "price to entry" idea as long as we couple that with the removal of the "cap on contribution" on federal taxes like Medicare or SS.

Don't have a problem with that at all. I'd also do away with the pernicious fiction that Social Security is actual some sort of retirement savings program.

[TerraPrime]

I'm absolutely on board with the "price to entry" idea as long as we couple that with the removal of the "cap on contribution" on federal taxes like Medicare or SS.

How would a "price to entry" be non-regressive? What form will it take?

[dalThor]

What's this about historic Polish communities and GM plants?

I haven't the slightest idea how it relates but this would be the reference.

In unrelated news, "Are you ready for some (more) bigotry?"

[TerraPrime]

I haven't the slightest idea how it relates but this would be the reference.

In unrelated news, "Are you ready for some (more) bigotry?"

Severe history fail - Hitler rounded up gay people in his concentration camps for extermination. Obama cannot be both a Hitler-esque figure and be in love with gay people, at the same time.

[Inigima]

I remain baffled by the continued media coverage of the political tirades of country singers.

[dalThor]

Obama cannot be both a Hitler-esque figure and be in love with gay people, at the same time.

Speaking of love and gay people here's a gay veteran running into Romney back in December. This may have been posted here then or since but if it was I missed it and I apologize.

Hilarity ensues.

And, lest I forget, the summary: Romney's people suck at weeding out people with opposing viewpoints.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I cannot honestly fathom how "people whose money net goes away from them" could in any way feel that they don't receive a corresponding benefit and I suppose that they only way they could realistically feel that way is because the benefits they do receive are so invisible that they can keep telling themselves that it's all those poor people who are living on the dole.

But whenever I drive through a very nice neighborhood with no crime, no potholes, great public schools and then through a poor one where there is a lot of crime, bad roads, and bad schools, it's clear that the wealthy get what they pay for.

And the wealthy often benefit disproportionately from federal spending. Take infrastructure spending for example, or military spending. Yes, I personally benefit from better, more modern infrastructure and secure borders. But doesn't the wealthy business owner benefit much more from faster shipping methods or from shipping lanes in foreign seas that are protected because there is a nearby American military base?

Well, roads (US interstates aside) and schools are funded generally by local tax dollars (in the case of schools, property tax dollars). Ditto for police and fire protection Particularly with respect to schools, I do think there is the direct correlation that you are talking about, and I do, in fact, agree with you. I think most "wealthier" people are aware of that, and in fact make a direct cost-benefit analysis when moving to a school district as to what they are getting for their property tax dollars versus what they might be spending in another school district where houses are less expensive (but schools are less good). I have in fact heard people saying that moving to a certain school district near us is "a push" if you have one child, and "a win" with more than one because property taxes are ~= to the cost of a private school education elsewhere in the area.

I think it's much, much, harder to parse when you look at federal dollars. Though my example was dealing with perception (rather than reality), if you really want to get down into the nitty gritty of the reality of how federal dollars are spent, you might be quite surprised. In fact, there is a net transfer of wealth away from "blue states" (e.g., New York), which tend to be wealthy urban states to "red states." New Yorkers get cents on the dollar whereas, e.g., West Virginia gets some enormous return on investment. Dont take my word for it: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps The really interesting shift, from my perspective, is the shift of dollars from urban economies to rural economies.

It's actually fascinating data if you really delve into it. What this particular article doesn't actually capture is the income disparity in given jurisdictions and it doesn't address the perception of the people living in the state as to whether they are getting value for their money. For instance, wealthy folks paying taxes in high-tax blue states such as New York and California actually are not getting a good return on their investment.

Virginia and Florida are particularly interesting to me because they both have wealthy populations, which populations are split roughly down the middle red/blue, and also some poor urban and rural populations.

I find your example of "wealthy business owners" benefitting from the "presence of a nearby military base" not that helpful in this particular instance, however. Your example only would benefit a wealthy person who is in the export business. Equally, you could say that people of lower incomes benefit a lot from access to cheaper goods from imports.

[Guy Kilmore]

I actually have a lot of sympathy for this position. I completely understand the argument that everybody pays taxes. I got it. Trust me. I really do. However, to think about the issue more specifically:

1. We have a Federal system. Therefore there are different levels of government. Sales taxes are state and local taxes, not National taxes. I would like people to pay some amount at every level. Consumers don't "feel" sales taxes in the same way as income taxes - they are part of the purchase price of the goods and services they use every day. Yes, it's an add-on. Yes, it counts. But it doesn't hit all the points that I think are necessary to get the result Raidne alludes to.

I do take exception to some of this. In my line of work, I help many people who have marginal income balance their budgets and to figure out methods in stretching what little resources they have. They feel every penny, probably more so than other people. In essence, I am not sure where you are going with this and if I have taken offense because of a misunderstanding, I do apologize.