Is Republican base beginning a shift away from tax cuts for the rich?

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,671
28,824
136
For me its not so much soaking the rich but since the mid 70s almost all the tax advantages have gone to the top 1%. Have you seen the wage gap since the mid 70s? When have the middle class gotten any advantages since the GI bill?



Elizabeth Warren's Tax Proposal Is Popular Even With Republicans
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/elizabeth-warren-apos-tax-proposal-232819442.html



Fox News Hosts Are Horrified to Learn Their Own Polls Show People Want to Tax the Rich

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fox-news-hosts-horrified-learn-172222093.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The workforce is increasingly bifurcated (see below) so movement to "tax the rich" makes sense in the macro environment. Would be interesting context to see what amount of income/wealth was being considered "rich" for purposes of being willing to tax. Makes a big difference whether the "rich" is the top 1% (about $700k in income), top 5% (about $300k) or 10% (6 figures) or some other number. The urban professional class in the top 10% would recant their support for "tax the rich" real quick if the general populace put them in scope as "rich" who deserved to be soaked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/productivity-inequality-wages.html
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
hahaha, no. These people fundamentally believe that they will, some day, be as preposterously wealthy as the others. All it takes is, you know, "hard work and dedication" to get out of the muckhole of rust belt despair and you, too, can join the 1% that all GOP policies are designed to protect and further enrich. But, of course, it will never happen. Supporting such policies simply preserves that non-inherited wealth and utterly meaningless "hard work from nothing!" into the same lower-to-middle class bondage.

It's a vicious self-defeating cycle. The GOP can only ever sell its base on fantasy, so they simply convince them that continually voting against themselves to ever achieve the fantasy that they are being sold will eventually earn them that fantasy lifestyle. They fundamentally believe that all Democrats are ever doing is trying to stop them from ever achieving that dream--because they are taxing the wealth that I will eventually earn!

It's really quite insane, but this is the GOP base.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The workforce is increasingly bifurcated (see below) so movement to "tax the rich" makes sense in the macro environment. Would be interesting context to see what amount of income/wealth was being considered "rich" for purposes of being willing to tax. Makes a big difference whether the "rich" is the top 1% (about $700k in income), top 5% (about $300k) or 10% (6 figures) or some other number. The urban professional class in the top 10% would recant their support for "tax the rich" real quick if the general populace put them in scope as "rich" who deserved to be soaked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/productivity-inequality-wages.html

Oh, please. We can make a start by making taxes truly progressive in the 1% rather than regressive at the top the way they've been for a very long time.

The rest of America will remain highly resistant to raising their own taxes so long as they know the Uber Wealthy receive very favorable treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,333
705
126
Oh, please. We can make a start by making taxes truly progressive in the 1% rather than regressive at the top the way they've been for a very long time.

The rest of America will remain highly resistant to raising their own taxes so long as they know the Uber Wealthy receive very favorable treatment.
but the rich, the job creators, will just pack up and leave...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
hahaha, no. These people fundamentally believe that they will, some day, be as preposterously wealthy as the others. All it takes is, you know, "hard work and dedication" to get out of the muckhole of rust belt despair and you, too, can join the 1% that all GOP policies are designed to protect and further enrich. But, of course, it will never happen. Supporting such policies simply preserves that non-inherited wealth and utterly meaningless "hard work from nothing!" into the same lower-to-middle class bondage.

It's a vicious self-defeating cycle. The GOP can only ever sell its base on fantasy, so they simply convince them that continually voting against themselves to ever achieve the fantasy that they are being sold will eventually earn them that fantasy lifestyle. They fundamentally believe that all Democrats are ever doing is trying to stop them from ever achieving that dream--because they are taxing the wealth that I will eventually earn!

It's really quite insane, but this is the GOP base.

It's not really that. They just get suckered by the same old wedge issues every election, race being at the front of it.

Hence the failure of our political system to serve socially conservative/racist voters who also want to tax the rich and preserve Social Security. Democrats won’t ratify their racism; Republicans, who have no such compunctions, will — remember, the party establishment solidly backed Roy Moore’s Senate bid — but won’t protect the programs they depend on.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/opinion/ralph-northam-howard-schultz.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

DrunkenSano

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2008
3,892
490
126
As the class discrepancy continues to widen between the ultra rich and the regular American people, it isn't surprising to see that the majority of people that are suffering will be going after those that are preying on them. This isn't new and it has happened repeatedly in history, that is why revolutions happen. The only issue is how this is presented when it comes time to voting. Last presidential election, it seems like not enough was done to properly and fully lay out these issues. It should have been these issues that are on full blast 24/7, not about how retarded Trump is. Everyone knew Trump was an idiot, there was no reason to keep blasting that.

Hopefully this time around, the democrats will focus on more on the right message and how to direct our country in the right direction economically instead of trying to tear each other down. Democrats need to win, and not just win but win by a landslide, so it will blow away the old corrupt scum that are currently locked in. This will hopefully also wake up the Republicans, that their base is no longer the ultra rich, that the old school rules are no longer in play, then that party can reform too. A healthy American is one that has both a good democratic and republican party.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
As the class discrepancy continues to widen between the ultra rich and the regular American people, it isn't surprising to see that the majority of people that are suffering will be going after those that are preying on them. This isn't new and it has happened repeatedly in history, that is why revolutions happen. The only issue is how this is presented when it comes time to voting. Last presidential election, it seems like not enough was done to properly and fully lay out these issues. It should have been these issues that are on full blast 24/7, not about how retarded Trump is. Everyone knew Trump was an idiot, there was no reason to keep blasting that.

Hopefully this time around, the democrats will focus on more on the right message and how to direct our country in the right direction economically instead of trying to tear each other down. Democrats need to win, and not just win but win by a landslide, so it will blow away the old corrupt scum that are currently locked in. This will hopefully also wake up the Republicans, that their base is no longer the ultra rich, that the old school rules are no longer in play, then that party can reform too. A healthy American is one that has both a good democratic and republican party.

Please. The GOP had the opportunity to change their tune in the collapse of the Ownership Society 10 years ago. They doubled down with obstruction instead & parlayed that into what we have today. GOP voters believe a lot of things that simply aren't true.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Oh, please. We can make a start by making taxes truly progressive in the 1% rather than regressive at the top the way they've been for a very long time.

The rest of America will remain highly resistant to raising their own taxes so long as they know the Uber Wealthy receive very favorable treatment.

Whoosh and my point goes over your head. OP cites a poll showing support for taxing the "rich" with the word being undefined. I openly wonder what the word "rich" means to those polled and you reply with your standard screed against the rich.

Let's try it again - the poll would seem to indicate support for "making taxes truly progressive in the 1%" since I'm guessing most polled would agree they qualify as rich. Question remains open what the people being polled consider as being the lower band of "rich" which they're willing to tax. Is it 1% and nothing more? If not what is the number?
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,227
16,687
136
but the rich, the job creators, will just pack up and leave...

Yeah they’ll go France where they can pay 90% or they can go to some shithole where they won’t pay any taxes, until the get robbed or swindled or some shithole government guy takes 100% of it.
 

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,217
1,288
136
It doesn't matter, the same part of the GOP base that wants to tax the rich are the same that will never vote Dem because abortion, religion, <other social wedge issue here>.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Whoosh and my point goes over your head. OP cites a poll showing support for taxing the "rich" with the word being undefined. I openly wonder what the word "rich" means to those polled and you reply with your standard screed against the rich.

Let's try it again - the poll would seem to indicate support for "making taxes truly progressive in the 1%" since I'm guessing most polled would agree they qualify as rich. Question remains open what the people being polled consider as being the lower band of "rich" which they're willing to tax. Is it 1% and nothing more? If not what is the number?

Obfuscate more, away from the preferential treatment afforded to investment income vs earned income at the tippy top. Hell, truly enormous incomes are derived almost entirely from investment. The top 1% is an obvious place to start, one the vast majority of Americans can agree upon. We can broaden that later should we reach consensus to do so.

It would only be fair if people at the top paid higher rates than people at the entry level to the 1%. The problem is that they demonstrably pay a much lower rate. We should all be able to agree that it isn't right.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,101
670
126
Whoosh and my point goes over your head. OP cites a poll showing support for taxing the "rich" with the word being undefined. I openly wonder what the word "rich" means to those polled and you reply with your standard screed against the rich.

Let's try it again - the poll would seem to indicate support for "making taxes truly progressive in the 1%" since I'm guessing most polled would agree they qualify as rich. Question remains open what the people being polled consider as being the lower band of "rich" which they're willing to tax. Is it 1% and nothing more? If not what is the number?

Did you even bother to read the links, the questions are well defined what rich means:

"It turns out that even Fox News can't find a way to hijack those numbers. The network's own polls, conducted at the end of January, found a staggering 70 percent of respondents supported raising taxes on annual income over $10 million. In fact, 65 percent were down for raising taxes on those making over $1 million per year."

"In a new Politico/Morning Consult survey, 61 percent of voters favored “a recent proposal to levy a new, 2 percent annual tax on all assets owned by households with a net worth of $50 million or more, and an additional 1 percent tax on households with a net worth of more than $1 billion.”

etc.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
Whoosh and my point goes over your head. OP cites a poll showing support for taxing the "rich" with the word being undefined. I openly wonder what the word "rich" means to those polled and you reply with your standard screed against the rich.

Let's try it again - the poll would seem to indicate support for "making taxes truly progressive in the 1%" since I'm guessing most polled would agree they qualify as rich. Question remains open what the people being polled consider as being the lower band of "rich" which they're willing to tax. Is it 1% and nothing more? If not what is the number?

Well the number that's been floating around (and which I've seen polling on) is taxing the 10,000,001st dollar at 70%. Pretty strong approval for dems and reps.

That's well below 1%. Maybe more like .01% or less. Capital gains and inheritance taxes should also be fixed.

Did you even bother to read the links, the questions are well defined what rich means:

"It turns out that even Fox News can't find a way to hijack those numbers. The network's own polls, conducted at the end of January, found a staggering 70 percent of respondents supported raising taxes on annual income over $10 million. In fact, 65 percent were down for raising taxes on those making over $1 million per year."

"In a new Politico/Morning Consult survey, 61 percent of voters favored “a recent proposal to levy a new, 2 percent annual tax on all assets owned by households with a net worth of $50 million or more, and an additional 1 percent tax on households with a net worth of more than $1 billion.”

etc.

They'd definitely figure out a way to weasel out of that. There's a reason Fogarty wrote this:

Some folks are born
Silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves? Yoh!
But when the taxman
Comes to the door
Lord, the house look a like a rummage sale, yeah
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,173
126
It doesn't matter, the same part of the GOP base that wants to tax the rich are the same that will never vote Dem because abortion, religion, <other social wedge issue here>.
Exactly, I don't believe that issue will stop people from voting repub in red states especially.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Exactly, I don't believe that issue will stop people from voting repub in red states especially.

The beauty of it all for insincere GOP politicos is that it's self perpetuating. The worse the Jerb Creators make it for their flock the shittier their attitudes get about the rest of America. Tell them they're being attacked by the other side- gun grabbers, freedom haters, whatever. It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be believed.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
It's not really that. They just get suckered by the same old wedge issues every election, race being at the front of it.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/opinion/ralph-northam-howard-schultz.html

right, and how else do you convince them that everything the Dems support will stifle everything you believe that you are? Wedge issues are another way to create this separation from the reality of the policy that the leaders want to what they want their base to believe they are. If Dems are coming after your guns and your cells, then clearly they are coming after your money, too, and will never let you be the independent wealthy person that you deserve to be, without ever having to worry about making yourself competitive by attending college (because yeah--that's where all the elitists go and you don't want to be like them, right?)

The GOP is all about keeping their base so dumb and so confused that the only thing left for them is to support the people promising to keep them happy in their misery, because it's everyone else's fault and "We just want to get you out of it!"
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Please. The GOP had the opportunity to change their tune in the collapse of the Ownership Society 10 years ago. They doubled down with obstruction instead & parlayed that into what we have today. GOP voters believe a lot of things that simply aren't true.

The 3 main goals of the ownership society are:

1. patients have control of [decisions on] their personal health care,
2. parents control [i.e. have power over] their children's education, and
3. workers control [i.e. have some responsibility for the investment of, or explicit property rights in] their retirement savings.

Which of these three do you think is bad for America?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
For me its not so much soaking the rich but since the mid 70s almost all the tax advantages have gone to the top 1%. Have you seen the wage gap since the mid 70s? When have the middle class gotten any advantages since the GI bill?

Exactly what tax advantages have gone to the rich? Are you saying they get special tax breaks the rest of us can not use?

Regardless of how much the rich are taxed, the amount brought in is about the same. Look at charts going back to the 1930s and the amount the peoples were taxed at. Overall revenue dropped as percentages on rich people increased.

Let's say someone makes 10 million. What do they do with that 10 million? Chances are they invest and spend a lot of it. They buy a home, or two homes, or three homes. Someone had to build those homes.

Those yachts do not magically appear out of thin air, someone has to build them.

Cars do not magically appear.

Private jets do not build themselves.

When rich people spend money, it creates jobs down the line somewhere.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,173
126
Exactly what tax advantages have gone to the rich? Are you saying they get special tax breaks the rest of us can not use?

Regardless of how much the rich are taxed, the amount brought in is about the same. Look at charts going back to the 1930s and the amount the peoples were taxed at. Overall revenue dropped as percentages on rich people increased.

Let's say someone makes 10 million. What do they do with that 10 million? Chances are they invest and spend a lot of it. They buy a home, or two homes, or three homes. Someone had to build those homes.

Those yachts do not magically appear out of thin air, someone has to build them.

Cars do not magically appear.

Private jets do not build themselves.

When rich people spend money, it creates jobs down the line somewhere.

It all trickles down!! :D

Why do those rich people need 2-3-4 homes, other than just because they can?

It's fine to be wealthy but the share of income has gone disproportionately to the very wealthy. And those people didn't work hard or get rich in a vacuum, they got rich off the labour/work/inventions of others usually.
 
Last edited:

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
It's fine to be wealthy but the share of income has gone disproportionately to the very wealthy. And those people didn't get rich in a vacuum, they got rich off the labour/work/inventions of others usually.

And?

You mean people like the cook at Microsoft office who became a millionaire because he invested into Microsoft stock early?

10 years years ago my uncle bought several thousand dollars of Cheniere Energy stock when it was $1 - $2 a share. When he cashed out he made over $100,000. He bought the stock over the course of several years.

How about the people who bought stock in Apple when it was pennys a share?

Are you saying you are too lazy to research penny stocks? The opportunities are out there, all you have to do is look.

The next big thing will probably be cannabis stocks. Are you looking into that? It may take several years, but as we move towards legalization early investors stand to make a lot of money.

In other words, you are saying you are lazy, and it is not fair that people who are not lazy make more money than you?

I wish I had bought stock in that Amazon online book store back in the late 1990s.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The 3 main goals of the ownership society are:

1. patients have control of [decisions on] their personal health care,
2. parents control [i.e. have power over] their children's education, and
3. workers control [i.e. have some responsibility for the investment of, or explicit property rights in] their retirement savings.

Which of these three do you think is bad for America?

That's dishonest. From the wikipedia artcle you quoted & didn't link-

The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals.[1] From 2004 Bush supporters described the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms, including specific policy proposals concerning home ownership, medicine, education and savings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

I referenced the collapse of the financial flimflams driving the home ownership part of it. It set off the Great Recession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie