• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

The fundamental difference between a Democrat and a Republican and...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
3,063
1,322
136
Just because you call it with a perjorative "trickle down economics" doesn't change that essentially you just want to screw the rich because they're rich. It's not about funding needs, or equitable taxation, or anything else. Income tax burden of the bottom 90% has gone down steadily over the past few decades but that's not enough since your entire worldview is based upon knocking down the rich a few pegs.
Wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the share of the national GDP of the bottom 90% has gone down in proportion :rolleyes:

By the way, I get a tax increase from the Repub plan, so so much for this idiotic drunken rant from Conner.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
Just because you call it with a perjorative "trickle down economics" doesn't change that essentially you just want to screw the rich because they're rich. It's not about funding needs, or equitable taxation, or anything else. Income tax burden of the bottom 90% has gone down steadily over the past few decades but that's not enough since your entire worldview is based upon knocking down the rich a few pegs. Which is why this is sad, progressives have an argument that's basically correct (we're at the point of diminishing returns for cuts to top rates, we're not starting from a 70% top bracket anymore) but ruin it with class warfare tactics. Yeah rich people might get some tax relief but guess what, that's OK because they're citizens too; hoarding every bit of tax relief for just the poor or middle classes and withholding it from the rich is both bad policy and mere spiteful behavior.

Mitt Romney said that Russia was our #1 adversary in 2012 and Obama mocked him about having a foreign policy from the 1980s so you're a bit off on your assessment.
Regardless of what someone's motivation is we both agree that taxes on the rich should increase, right?
 

LPCTech

Senior member
Dec 11, 2013
680
93
86
Democrats aren't Nazis or Russian collaborators.

Republicans only want lower taxes for the richest of the rich. And to reduce spending on poor people, education, women, and everyone they hate. They want to tax the middle class. And they talk about lower spending but then they give the savings to the military. Middle class taxes never go down. Only for the 1%.

Republicans are the evil leading the stupid. Every republican is a criminal at heart.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Regardless of what someone's motivation is we both agree that taxes on the rich should increase, right?
No, I very much disagree that motivation isn't a factor. If taxes need to be raised for some reason then the burden should be shared by all groups. It wouldn't need to be an equal share but both fairness and basic acceptance and buy-in require all to be impacted. Ditto goes for tax cuts.

When your primary or even entire motivation for increasing taxes on the rich is an attempt to "reduce income inequality" or some other non-revenue objective then you're doing it wrong. You wouldn't withhold government services from the rich to attempt to "level the playing field" so why would you do it via taxes? We don't refuse to conduct USDA inspections on the food a rich guy eats, or refuse to dispatch the Coast Guard if they have a boating accident, or anything else, so why would you attempt to punitively punish them via the tax code? It's the same thing only on the other side of the ledger.
 

Majes

Golden Member
Apr 8, 2008
1,134
112
106
I'm a registered Republican. But the current Republican party is an absolute embarrassment...

I know most of the posters here think that the Tea Party was a joke, but i really viewed it as the last attempt at true fiscal conservatism in a political party. We currently have the Democrats with their "Tax more, spend more" and the NeoCons with their "Tax less, spend more". We have no opportunity to vote for candidates that will "Tax less, spend less" or even God-forbid the "Tax more, spend less".

I honestly don't know how Trump did it, but we now have a fractured, mostly dead, political party in charge of our government. We knew the Republican party split, but everyone went out of their way to murder the Tea Party so when the base reunited to vote this past election it really just put NeoCons back into office.

We've had a stupid, stupid travel ban.
We've tried to remove the healthcare plan without having any good ideas to replace it.
We've got a tax plan that seems like an absolute economic time-bomb.

These are policies from an essentially dead political party...

A lot of people think Trump voters have no remorse. That's true for the subset that choose a candidate based on whether or not they can keep their guns. But the intelligent Trump voters I know don't like the policies being put into place. They aren't getting what they hoped because they either voted against the democrats or for a NeoCon platform whose ideas are dead. Most Republican voters are fiscal conservatives who somehow think their "conservative" party truly is conservative...

It's so frustrating to come here and read the posts because for the most part most of you are correct! The Republican party is a joke right now, and our "solutions" are worse than simply leaving things alone. I can't even get into arguments against left leaning policies because as soon as I mention anything related to Republicans or Conservatism my post is disregarded.

So to answer the original question... I would like less taxes and less spending. I could be talked into more taxes and less spending...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
No, I very much disagree that motivation isn't a factor. If taxes need to be raised for some reason then the burden should be shared by all groups. It wouldn't need to be an equal share but both fairness and basic acceptance and buy-in require all to be impacted. Ditto goes for tax cuts.

When your primary or even entire motivation for increasing taxes on the rich is an attempt to "reduce income inequality" or some other non-revenue objective then you're doing it wrong. You wouldn't withhold government services from the rich to attempt to "level the playing field" so why would you do it via taxes? We don't refuse to conduct USDA inspections on the food a rich guy eats, or refuse to dispatch the Coast Guard if they have a boating accident, or anything else, so why would you attempt to punitively punish them via the tax code? It's the same thing only on the other side of the ledger.
What are you talking about? We withhold government services from the rich all the time. Any service that is means tested like food stamps, public housing, etc is doing exactly that. Taxing all people equally implies that all people benefit equally from the system and that people are rewarded proportionally with their contributions to it. That's laughably false so it makes perfect sense to fix up the flaws in the system through legislation.

What someone's motivation is for our purposes is irrelevant, this is a simple math question. Do the rich get rewarded in excess of their contributions to society? If yes, then tax more. The answer is obviously yes, so more taxing is needed. Repeat as necessary.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Democrats aren't Nazis or Russian collaborators.

Republicans only want lower taxes for the richest of the rich. And to reduce spending on poor people, education, women, and everyone they hate. They want to tax the middle class. And they talk about lower spending but then they give the savings to the military. Middle class taxes never go down. Only for the 1%.

Republicans are the evil leading the stupid. Every republican is a criminal at heart.
You must have been asleep for the last couple decades if you think middle class tax rates never go down. Federal income taxes in both nominal rates and effective rates paid have been going down for 30 years with a slight blip up at the beginning of the Clinton admin. If you want to talk more broadly about overall tax burden including state/local taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, etc. then you might be correct but that's highly dependent on where you live and other factors.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
tax reform.
Do you believe in more taxes and higher spending or common sense tax cuts and less government spending?

As an adult, do you believe Santa or the Easter Bunny is the real deal? Relevant? Sure because your statement is based on the same "reality" as is my question. The current deal will giving a temporary break for some, then raise their taxes AND the deficit, something else you may have been taught that Republicans want. What we have are all the negatives except for the Trumps of the world. But removing protections is a Republican goal, well for the vast majority of people and protecting the 0.01%.

Your high school education is very much outdated and trite.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
60,949
4,478
126
I'm a registered Republican. But the current Republican party is an absolute embarrassment...

I know most of the posters here think that the Tea Party was a joke, but i really viewed it as the last attempt at true fiscal conservatism in a political party. We currently have the Democrats with their "Tax more, spend more" and the NeoCons with their "Tax less, spend more". We have no opportunity to vote for candidates that will "Tax less, spend less" or even God-forbid the "Tax more, spend less".

I honestly don't know how Trump did it, but we now have a fractured, mostly dead, political party in charge of our government. We knew the Republican party split, but everyone went out of their way to murder the Tea Party so when the base reunited to vote this past election it really just put NeoCons back into office.

We've had a stupid, stupid travel ban.
We've tried to remove the healthcare plan without having any good ideas to replace it.
We've got a tax plan that seems like an absolute economic time-bomb.

These are policies from an essentially dead political party...

A lot of people think Trump voters have no remorse. That's true for the subset that choose a candidate based on whether or not they can keep their guns. But the intelligent Trump voters I know don't like the policies being put into place. They aren't getting what they hoped because they either voted against the democrats or for a NeoCon platform whose ideas are dead. Most Republican voters are fiscal conservatives who somehow think their "conservative" party truly is conservative...

It's so frustrating to come here and read the posts because for the most part most of you are correct! The Republican party is a joke right now, and our "solutions" are worse than simply leaving things alone. I can't even get into arguments against left leaning policies because as soon as I mention anything related to Republicans or Conservatism my post is disregarded.

So to answer the original question... I would like less taxes and less spending. I could be talked into more taxes and less spending...
Thank you for this post. It's an honest look at your own views and what is happening. The problem with politics now is that it's all about buying votes. Whether that is at the polls, or inside of congressional chambers. People won't vote for free, let alone for a reduction in services. There's nothing sexy about "spending less". It's always a game of cut here only to spend it there. You never get ahead, only even at best. We as voters need to accept some responsibility for it as well. But we're all mostly too selfish at heart to vote for something that goes against our interests even if it is for the better of the countries health.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majes

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
Just because you call it with a perjorative "trickle down economics" doesn't change that essentially you just want to screw the rich because they're rich. .
As opposed to you who apparently only wants to screw the middle class. You and other middle class folk who voted like you are DIRECTLY responsible for what is about to happen to all of America. This is 100% on you. This is what you wanted.... well you fucking got it.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,500
18,063
136
tax reform.

High school civics has taught me a Democrat's philosophy is higher taxes and more spending. Where a Republican's philosophy is lower taxes and less spending.

With tax reform you can clearly see this from both sides. Chuck Shithead and Nancy Pathetic both crying foul about tax cuts, while many Republicans want to lower taxes for the American people. It did pass the House for God's sake.

So now the great question: Do you believe in more taxes and higher spending or common sense tax cuts and less government spending?
so, what they do is clearly less important than the things they say, right? This is why you continue to vote for Republicans that fundamentally and repeatedly increase taxes on deficit spending. It's all they ever do, but you beleive their most obvious, provable, lies.

It's because you're a moron, and the "high school civics" that you cling to was intentionally dumbed down for you by reduced federal spending on public education (Again, republicans), to insure your endless ignorance and uncritical approach to the blatant lies fed to you by republican assholes.

There is plain, objective reality, and then there is whatever nonsense you desperately cling to in order to explain away outside blame for your miserable life and terrible choices.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,500
18,063
136
Chuck Shithead and Nancy Pathetic have to be two of the worst nicknames I have ever heard.

I mean if you’re going to act like an eight year old wouldn’t it at least be something like Nancy B-lows-me or whatever?
That's actually pretty good. :D
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
What are you talking about? We withhold government services from the rich all the time. Any service that is means tested like food stamps, public housing, etc is doing exactly that. Taxing all people equally implies that all people benefit equally from the system and that people are rewarded proportionally with their contributions to it. That's laughably false so it makes perfect sense to fix up the flaws in the system through legislation.

What someone's motivation is for our purposes is irrelevant, this is a simple math question. Do the rich get rewarded in excess of their contributions to society? If yes, then tax more. The answer is obviously yes, so more taxing is needed. Repeat as necessary.
Entitlements and transfer payments aren't services. And I don't really care that you personally think the "rich get rewarded in excess to their contributions," that's self-serving "it takes a village" motivated thinking. It truly takes some mental gymnastics to belief that a rich person "benefits more" from the same stretch of roadway, or post office, or other common services. If you want to conflate specific tax benefits with "government services" then you might have a point but you're one of the ones complaining loudest about the removal of some of those benefits like the SALT benefit. But like most rich people you probably conveniently exclude yourself from their definition especially when it's time to pay higher taxes. Time for you to start paying those higher taxes you always claim you'll welcome paying.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,734
4,684
136
I'm a registered Republican. But the current Republican party is an absolute embarrassment...

I know most of the posters here think that the Tea Party was a joke, but i really viewed it as the last attempt at true fiscal conservatism in a political party. We currently have the Democrats with their "Tax more, spend more" and the NeoCons with their "Tax less, spend more". We have no opportunity to vote for candidates that will "Tax less, spend less" or even God-forbid the "Tax more, spend less".

I honestly don't know how Trump did it, but we now have a fractured, mostly dead, political party in charge of our government. We knew the Republican party split, but everyone went out of their way to murder the Tea Party so when the base reunited to vote this past election it really just put NeoCons back into office.

We've had a stupid, stupid travel ban.
We've tried to remove the healthcare plan without having any good ideas to replace it.
We've got a tax plan that seems like an absolute economic time-bomb.

These are policies from an essentially dead political party...

A lot of people think Trump voters have no remorse. That's true for the subset that choose a candidate based on whether or not they can keep their guns. But the intelligent Trump voters I know don't like the policies being put into place. They aren't getting what they hoped because they either voted against the democrats or for a NeoCon platform whose ideas are dead. Most Republican voters are fiscal conservatives who somehow think their "conservative" party truly is conservative...

It's so frustrating to come here and read the posts because for the most part most of you are correct! The Republican party is a joke right now, and our "solutions" are worse than simply leaving things alone. I can't even get into arguments against left leaning policies because as soon as I mention anything related to Republicans or Conservatism my post is disregarded.

So to answer the original question... I would like less taxes and less spending. I could be talked into more taxes and less spending...
So very glad to see a level headed conservative posting. You all have become a very small voice in the echo chamber that's been created over the past ~20 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majes
Jun 19, 2004
24,142
1,584
126
Just because you call it with a perjorative "trickle down economics" doesn't change that essentially you just want to screw the rich because they're rich. It's not about funding needs, or equitable taxation, or anything else. Income tax burden of the bottom 90% has gone down steadily over the past few decades but that's not enough since your entire worldview is based upon knocking down the rich a few pegs. Which is why this is sad, progressives have an argument that's basically correct (we're at the point of diminishing returns for cuts to top rates, we're not starting from a 70% top bracket anymore) but ruin it with class warfare tactics. Yeah rich people might get some tax relief but guess what, that's OK because they're citizens too; hoarding every bit of tax relief for just the poor or middle classes and withholding it from the rich is both bad policy and mere spiteful behavior.



Mitt Romney said that Russia was our #1 adversary in 2012 and Obama mocked him about having a foreign policy from the 1980s so you're a bit off on your assessment.
The fear is strong in this one.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
Entitlements and transfer payments aren't services.
Of course housing, medical care, etc are services. You're talking nonsense.

And I don't really care that you personally think the "rich get rewarded in excess to their contributions," that's self-serving "it takes a village" motivated thinking. It truly takes some mental gymnastics to belief that a rich person "benefits more" from the same stretch of roadway, or post office, or other common services. If you want to conflate specific tax benefits with "government services" then you might have a point but you're one of the ones complaining loudest about the removal of some of those benefits like the SALT benefit. But like most rich people you probably conveniently exclude yourself from their definition especially when it's time to pay higher taxes. Time for you to start paying those higher taxes you always claim you'll welcome paying.
It doesn't take motivated thinking, it just takes common sense. I don't believe that the average member of the top 0.1% of income earners deliver 200 times the economic value of the average member of the bottom 90% of the country, but that is the level at which they are rewarded. Since that's a market failure right there it's a smart thing to step in and correct it. As for myself, my household income is about three times the national average and I am perfectly fine with paying higher taxes if they were used to help people less fortunate than me. The problem I have is paying higher taxes to help people MORE fortunate than me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,203
126
The problem I have is paying higher taxes to help people MORE fortunate than me.
And Glen apparently doesn't. That about sums it. He doesn't seem to mind foisting the bill on his kids and grandkids either. Remember, this is a budget buster that is fueled with red ink. The next Republican blathering about balancing the budget should be tarred and feathered.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Of course housing, medical care, etc are services. You're talking nonsense.
If I were to take $100 out of your wallet and give it to a homeless person and say "go get a hotel room for the night" am I providing a service? The hotelier might be, but all I'm doing it taking money from one person to give to another to meet a need I feel should be met. If you want to call that wealth transference a "service" then feel free but most people would not.

It doesn't take motivated thinking, it just takes common sense. I don't believe that the average member of the top 0.1% of income earners deliver 200 times the economic value of the average member of the bottom 90% of the country, but that is the level at which they are rewarded. Since that's a market failure right there it's a smart thing to step in and correct it. As for myself, my household income is about three times the national average and I am perfectly fine with paying higher taxes if they were used to help people less fortunate than me. The problem I have is paying higher taxes to help people MORE fortunate than me.
Well then if your objective is to "correct a market failure" the morality or means shouldn't matter. Someone looting a store during a riot "helps people less fortunate" than the store owner so we should allow that to correct the market failure? Just because the government is the one doing the taking it doesn't make the taking somehow more legitimate. If your concern is economic equality then the proper and just way of addressing that would involve the same "veil of ignorance" principles of fairness as any other government policy. Thus something like a universal income would work, whereas punishing high earners with high taxes because "fairness" would not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
If I were to take $100 out of your wallet and give it to a homeless person and say "go get a hotel room for the night" am I providing a service? The hotelier might be, but all I'm doing it taking money from one person to give to another to meet a need I feel should be met. If you want to call that wealth transference a "service" then feel free but most people would not.
If you want to make that pedantic a point I'll let you know that the government itself operates housing in plenty of cases, meaning it directly provides a means tested service. This is a nonsensical. I am also willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people consider the government providing health insurance and money for housing to be providing services. Absolutely overwhelming majority.

Well then if your objective is to "correct a market failure" the morality or means shouldn't matter. Someone looting a store during a riot "helps people less fortunate" than the store owner so we should allow that to correct the market failure? Just because the government is the one doing the taking it doesn't make the taking somehow more legitimate. If your concern is economic equality then the proper and just way of addressing that would involve the same "veil of ignorance" principles of fairness as any other government policy. Thus something like a universal income would work, whereas punishing high earners with high taxes because "fairness" would not.
Why would the means not matter? That makes no sense. Attempting to say that a system of taxation is the equivalent of looting a store (ie: theft) is a ridiculous statement and I'm very certain you know it. In case you want to argue that all taxation is theft and therefore illegitimate that's fine but I'm not interested in doing that.

As for how we should pursue economic equality I see no reason to only pursue it your way, especially considering that lots and lots of government policies explicitly don't use the 'veil of ignorance' principle when looking at personal income. The answer is simple, if we see that people are being compensated to an extent dramatically greater than their contributions then let's fix it up with some taxes. Easy peasy.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
And Glen apparently doesn't. That about sums it. He doesn't seem to mind foisting the bill oASn his kids and grandkids either. Remember, this is a budget buster that is fueled with red ink. The next Republican blathering about balancing the budget should be tarred and feathered.
I don't really support this bill as currently written. As for foisting the bill no major party candidate on the ballot of either party would do anything about that and that's been the case for decades. We need a major rethink of both the government role and tax policy and both should be right-sized to the scope we decide; however if we continue thinking that government can and should solve every problem life can present then we are on the road to bankrupting those kids and grandkids you claim to care about. If we must have tax cuts for some reason I continue to think it's immoral to exclude the rich from them just because they're rich. All taxpayers should get benefits of tax cuts when they happen, and all should shoulder the burden when taxes go up. I have no doubt that the higher earners will continue to pay an outsized portion of federal income tax receipts no matter what.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,148
617
126
Of course housing, medical care, etc are services. You're talking nonsense.



It doesn't take motivated thinking, it just takes common sense. I don't believe that the average member of the top 0.1% of income earners deliver 200 times the economic value of the average member of the bottom 90% of the country, but that is the level at which they are rewarded. Since that's a market failure right there it's a smart thing to step in and correct it. As for myself, my household income is about three times the national average and I am perfectly fine with paying higher taxes if they were used to help people less fortunate than me. The problem I have is paying higher taxes to help people MORE fortunate than me.
Can you explain how you or I paying higher taxes benefits the likes of Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, etc?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY