Giving Taxcuts to the rich is a liberal mantra - Beware!

About: comparison: left-wing, right-wing by issue

My money doesn't belong to anyone except me - got it? It does not belong to the  Government. The Government can't earn anything - it just doesn't produce anything & has no money of it's own.  Government has no right taxing my income differently than yours.  They get away with it by creating class envy.

            This is the picture:
A flat tax paid yearly just before the national budget is argued (or April 15) is the only way to go. Then the government will feel the bite & quit spending your earnings to get re-elected (job-security). Remember the Boston Tea Party - we need another one soon.


(borrowed from the
Rush Limbaugh site - go there if you want the links)


Tags

  1. taxes
  2. liberal mantra
  3. spread wealth around

Comments


Mark de LA says
BTW, trickle down economics is a snide liberal mantra (strawman) they repeated over and over again during the Reagan administration. Ronald Reagan's metaphor was improve the economy by tax cuts (currently working for the Bush admin. as well) & then a rising tide floats all boats.


Mark de LA says
Seth, your list 3874 is not without bias from a liberal perspective. The way you ask the questions or frame the debate guarantees a certain response & predictable polarization. Polsters do this all the time pretending they are taking the pulse of the country. You need to crisp up the descriptions of the issues & remove the bias if you really expect to move the debate in a more intelligent, less polarized direction. 


Seth says
M 2006-07-09 08:54:03 3892
Seth, your list 3874 is not without bias from a liberal perspective. The way you ask the questions or frame the debate guarantees a certain response & predictable polarization. Polsters do this all the time pretending they are taking the pulse of the country. You need to crisp up the descriptions of the issues & remove the bias if you really expect to move the debate in a more intelligent, less polarized direction. 

Yes i know the questions are not phrased correctly yet.  I think i said that a number of times now already yet.  What would be useful would be for you to suggest alternate questions or alternate phraseing.  I'm serioulsly thinking of revising it along the lines of The Topology suggented by Beyond Red vs Blue.   I was really impressed by how they did that.  Did you take a look at it?

Seth says
Well i must admit that ...
source: definition of flat tax above

Not one cent to the IRS on the first $36,000. Anything over that would be taxed at a flat, fair 17%.
... has a nice ring to it .

Mark de LA says
I liked these as well from Steve Forbes:
source: ...

But the politicians say "we" can't afford a tax cut. Maybe we can't afford the politicians.

I say it's time that we cut government's income and raise our families' incomes.

... Unfortunately he didn't win the Republican nomination .



Mark de LA says
source: ... I think i said that a number of times now already yet.
... & yet you continue to add new ones which have the same flaw....


Seth says
M 2006-07-09 09:34:33 3892
source: ... I think i said that a number of times now already yet.
... & yet you continue to add new ones which have the same flaw....

Please be specific and suggest alternatives.

Mark de LA says
uri http://typology.people-press.org/typology/ is interesting but they split the issues in two & then repolarize. It is kinda confusing.  A lot of people don't use the black & white criteria of strongly agree or strongly disagree.  I once took a psychological test online for a job interview. It was endless. The point was to see if I was compatible with the job. Each question was asked over & over again in a slightly different way to see if I was lying - some kinda standard test. Unfortunately, by the end of the ~200 questions I was just tired & very confused. It was a bad experience. I hope we are not moving in that direction. The test I took was supposedly normed & scientific though . In the end they were just testing endurance.

Seth says
The biggest problem with a tax cut now is that we have to pay for the war in Iraque.  In general i'm for less government and less government means less taxes.  But on the other hand i'm not in favor of having the next generation pay for current spending.  This is a complex issue and not one that we are gonna solve with a couple of simplistic strokes in the blogosphere.  


Mark de LA says
I don't like the questions in Beyond Red vs Blue.  In the very first question I don't agree/disagree with either. The premises of the questions are both wrong.,


Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-09 09:39:39 3892
M 2006-07-09 09:34:33 3892
source: ... I think i said that a number of times now already yet.
... & yet you continue to add new ones which have the same flaw....
Please be specific and suggest alternatives.
This whole item is about one of them (#5), to wit:
source: ...
(5) trickel down economics ... giving tax cuts to the rich is good for our economy
... A better (unbiassed) might be lower taxes versus higher taxes. Or progressive taxes verses flat tax.



Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-09 09:44:49 3892
The biggest problem with a tax cut now is that we have to pay for the war in Iraque.  In general i'm for less government and less government means less taxes.  But on the other hand i'm not in favor of having the next generation pay for current spending.  This is a complex issue and not one that we are gonna solve with a couple of simplistic strokes in the blogosphere.  
OH SHIT! The tax cuts are working!

Seth says
M 2006-07-09 09:43:29 3892
 I hope we are not moving in that direction.

Certaionly not.  I would like to keep the issues to around 10.  As you can see the trick is to choose the right 10 such that either side could honestly answer the question and not have that feeling that they were being mislead.   What we are doing here is to see if we can hold up to the light of day really what it means to be on the left or the right.  I would like nothing better than to conclude that it is totally meaningless.  But if it does have meaning, what specifically does it mean ... can we make it mean something less binary than just a smut word cast at the other side ... or not ?  If not, then can we come up with a better way of identifying with political beliefs?  What i suggested in 3874 was to look for something that was more like lego blocks.

Seth says
M 2006-07-09 09:46:34 3892
I don't like the questions in Beyond Red vs Blue.  In the very first question I don't agree/disagree with either. The premises of the questions are both wrong.,

Hmmm ....
source: Beyond Red vs Blue

We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong ?
It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?
I had no problem agreeing with "It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?"  ... for me civil disobedience is a virture.  Obviously if i believe that it would not be consistant to believe that "We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong ?" ... sorry i dont see the erronious premises in either question.   Could you elaborate them?

Seth says
M 2006-07-09 10:24:42 3892
A less biassed discriminator is progressive tax versus flat tax.
The trouble i have with that is that a flat tax is a radical innovation.  Regardless of how good an idea it is , it is still not something that currently will separate out the blues from the reds.

Saying yes or no to "Should taxation be progressive?" might get us closer.  I just think that most people are gonna do a "Huh?" in response to that question.   But i'll change (5) to that in liew of better wording.

Mark de LA says
There you go: " perception that the republican strategy is to give tax breaks to rich" is admitedly biassed. A liberal will always agree and a conservative will say your premise is wrong. A less biassed discriminator is progressive tax versus flat tax.


Seth says
M 2006-07-09 09:56:38 3892
(5) trickel down economics ... giving tax cuts to the rich is good for our economy
... A better (unbiassed) might be lower taxes versus higher taxes. Or progressive taxes verses flat tax.
I think just about everybody will assent to "Do you want lower taxes?"  (5)  as you imply above in your item, was  designed to address the perception that the republican strategy is to give tax breaks to rich, the democratic strategy is to over tax the rich and give the breaks to the poor.  It is your basic distribution of wealth issue.  Is this a real issue or not?  Does the right opt for the rich against the poor .. or not?  From an unbiased perspective what is the reality of this issue?  Can we find a proposition that most people who stand on the left will say one thing and those who stand on the right will say the opposite?  We are not here to argue who pays more taxes or even the justiceof that distribution.  We are here trying to figure out how a conservitive would distribut taxes that a liberal would do differently.

Mark de LA says
The flat tax is only radical if you believe in the communist manifesto "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" of Karl Marx. To me it appears more natural for everyone to contribute equally to running the government.


Mark de LA says
source: ... We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong ?
It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?
... Our current military is voluntary. Don't join if you don't want to fight & blow things up & kill people. Once you join you are given orders. To refuse them is to cause the military to degenerate & order & discipline will go out the window.  You won't have any kind of military that way. It's a non-issue or moot.  Once you join there is a process to become a conscientious objector. If you are wishy-washy about the whole thing DON'T JOIN! If you think your president, congress & the courts can't/won't/don't do the right thing DON'T JOIN!  Once you join you do not have the luxury of choosing what wars you get to fight in!


Seth says
M 2006-07-09 11:22:35 3892
source: ... We should all be willing to fight for our country, whether it is right or wrong ?
It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?
... Our current military is voluntary. Don't join if you don't want to fight & blow things up & kill people. Once you join you are given orders. To refuse them is to cause the military to degenerate & order & discipline will go out the window.  You won't have any kind of military that way. It's a non-issue or moot.  Once you join there is a process to become a conscientious objector. If you are wishy-washy about the whole thing DON'T JOIN! If you think your president, congress & the courts can't/won't/don't do the right thing DON'T JOIN!  Once you join you do not have the luxury of choosing what wars you get to fight in!
The questions above do not contain any assumption about "our current military being voluntary".  If you put that assumption in, i can see how you could argue as you have a above. But the assumption is not there and it is a misread to assume that it is.  

Your "If you think your president, congress & the courts can't/won't/don't do the right thing DON'T JOIN! " is logically consistent with "It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?". 

Seth says
M 2006-07-09 11:11:30 3892
The flat tax is only radical if you believe in the communist manifesto "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" of Karl Marx. To me it appears more natural for everyone to contribute equally to running the government.
Pershap my inadvertant choice of the word "radical" has sent you away from my point.   I don't believe that the flat tax is even being discussed in Washington.  Is it even on the political radar?  Look maybe you would understand my objection if someone proposed putting in a proposition in our 10 that read like "We shoud tax sugar substitutes" ... such a proposition would not only be too particular for our 10 general catagories, but also would be quit out of the context of current political thinking. 

Mark de LA says
source: ... Your "If you think your president, congress & the courts can't/won't/don't do the right thing DON'T JOIN! " is logically consistent with "It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?".
... Not if you are in the military already !  If you are not in the military the question is moot - there is nothing to refuse.


Seth says
M 2006-07-10 08:43:03 3892
source: ... Your "If you think your president, congress & the courts can't/won't/don't do the right thing DON'T JOIN! " is logically consistent with "It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?".
... Not if you are in the military already !  If you are not in the military the question is moot - there is nothing to refuse.
I got that.  If you take the orignal question on face value and don't read extrneous stuff into it, then you should be able to answer it whith no problems.

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-10 08:59:43 3892
M 2006-07-10 08:43:03 3892
source: ... Your "If you think your president, congress & the courts can't/won't/don't do the right thing DON'T JOIN! " is logically consistent with "It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?".
... Not if you are in the military already !  If you are not in the military the question is moot - there is nothing to refuse.
I got that.  If you take the orignal question on face value and don't read extrneous stuff into it, then you should be able to answer it with no problems.
I have no trouble answering it - it is moot given that today we are not forced to join. You have a black & white or reality problem with your questions.

Mark de LA says
Nobody answers a question without some assumptions (context) - whether they tell you about them or not. It is an invalid question unless I take into account whether I am in the military or not. I answer yes I can refuse if I am outside the military & no if I am inside! Readjust your question please! 


Seth says
M 2006-07-10 09:03:05 3892
seth 2006-07-10 08:59:43 3892
M 2006-07-10 08:43:03 3892
source: ... Your "If you think your president, congress & the courts can't/won't/don't do the right thing DON'T JOIN! " is logically consistent with "It's acceptable to refuse to fight in a war you believe is morally wrong ?".
... Not if you are in the military already !  If you are not in the military the question is moot - there is nothing to refuse.
I got that.  If you take the orignal question on face value and don't read extrneous stuff into it, then you should be able to answer it with no problems.
I have no trouble answering it - it is moot given that today we are not forced to join. You have a black & white or reality problem with your questions.
It addresses a political belief:  my country right or wrong.  Many will say yes to that.  Perhaps you could find a better way to tease that belief out.  In my current 10, which is not cast in stone, i had not seen that as being all that important and it was not included.

Mark de LA says
BTW, this thoton has lost it's way in persuit of the original context which is:
source: ... Giving Taxcuts to the rich is a liberal mantra - Beware!
...
I don't think "my country right or wrong" is a good left-right discriminator. I am generally a nationalist versus a globalist. Maybe that is what you are thinking of.  It all depends upon just how wrong my country could be (or is) that guides my answer. I think if the US government decided to drop an atomic bomb on, say Washington State - I would pause an hour or two and probably say nope - that is wrong - (not today ).


Mark de LA says
I know that you hate Bush & think the war was wrong. Why don't you just say Hate Bush vs Love Bush - that is a good discriminator up to 2008. 


Mark de LA says
How about:  I am a globalist first & then a nationalist -vs- I am a nationalist first & then a globalist.  Also UN is good versus UN is bad.

Seth says
M 2006-07-10 09:44:35 3892
I am generally a nationalist versus a globalist. Maybe that is what you are thinking of. 
I do think the catagories need to be more general than current affairs.  Your right, "my government right or worng", is too strong a question and implies more than is necessary.  You tend to be more nationalistic, i tend not to relate to nationalism as being all that important in relation to global concerns.  Finding the right phraseing that would tease that out that you could say "yes" to and i could say "not" to would, imho, be progress. 

Perhaps something like:  "The interests of USA are more important to me than the interests of other regions."

Mark de LA says
The liberal mantra is still alive & well in the last debate of the season.  Here are a couple of resources that track tax policy for more accurate information - they both claim to be nonpartisan.  I did find them on the CNN facts check link though.

Seth says
I realize that "spread the wealth around" is a hot button phrase to you.  But for others ... a lot of others ... it sounds more like just being fair.  Reducing taxes on upper income individuals (as the Bush/McCain tax cuts did) was just the exact same "wealth redistribution scheme" only in reverse.  That especially goes for capital gains taxes which those of us who are just trying to keep our families together never do get a chance to pay.  It is ironic that those who got the benefit of those tax cuts are now complaining about the other guy getting a break.  Sure it is a class struggle going on here.  But why, logically, side with one class and not the other?  Apply the same rhetoric to both. 

We have always had a graduated scale where upper incomes pay a higher percentage.  Yet even with that extra tax burden the gap between the rich and the middle class grew in the last 8 years?  It seems fair to adjust the graduated scale to better reflect the realities of modern society.

Thing is, Mark, let us let the rubber hit the road.  Try answering the following hypothetical question directly.  What if, your income is $35,000,  and on your next tax return you can vote the same time your make out your return.  You would have two boxes:
  • A vote for McCain, -- reduce my tax by $   230.74 (or)
  • A vote for Obama, -- reduce my tax by $1,152.07
Honestly, rationally, which box are you going to check?  Figures courtesy of ObamaTaxCut.com.

Mark de LA says
The Devil is in BHO's details.  So BHO is bribing some class of people to vote for him while spending your taxes for more programs for the people to also vote for him.  Seems as if when 50% of the people don't pay taxes that you should probably watch your wallet carefully. We're almost there. BHO even wants to give tax rebates to those who don't even pay income taxes.  Since you haven't mastered the original detail here is the updated version of the graphic above:
There's more detail, but the Kool-Aid probably would prevent you from seeing it.


See Also

  1. Thought The new tax plan - detailed examination with 21 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  2. Thought Leading to cheat ! with 16 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  3. Thought Government/Economy Separation Dispute #1 with 5 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  4. Thought Tax & Prosperity - The Laffer Curve with 4 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  5. Thought Balancing Budgets on the Backs of Taxpaying EARNERS with 4 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  6. Thought Flat Tax with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  7. Thought More Common Sense - Less Hyperbole Please with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  8. Thought Happy Tax Day with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  9. Thought Oil Prices with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  10. Thought Separation of Church & State is sometimes a Bitch with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  11. Thought about: the crossroads of should and must with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  12. Thought Obama - tax like a maniac & spend like a drunken sailor with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".
  13. Thought I Wonder Why? with 0 viewings related by tag "taxes".