Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

[emmiedahl]

The super-rich are paying less in taxes and getting more profit than ever before. Their taxes are a much smaller percentage of their disposable income than the typical American family. I don't think we should tax the merely rich, but the ultra-rich. Especially unearned income.

[Rosa]

If look at what people *own* instead of what they *earn*, you can see the disconnect better - the distribution of wealth in this country is nothing like the distribution of taxes.

And even in the supposed "middle class" - I pay a higher rate of taxes than my partner, because part of his income is above the social security payment cap.

[lizzy]

If look at what people *own* instead of what they *earn*, you can see the disconnect better - the distribution of wealth in this country is nothing like the distribution of taxes.

And even in the supposed "middle class" - I pay a higher rate of taxes than my partner, because part of his income is above the social security payment cap.

I agree there is a disproportion in the amount of wealth distribution in this country. But collecting more taxes from the rich isn't going to change that. The tax rate on the rich has gone up over the years and they are just getting wealthier.

If I were running the country, I'd abolish the IRS and establish a 20% flat tax rate for everybody with no credits are loopholes. But, since that isn't happening, there is nobody in the GOP I'm interested in, and since pigs will fly before I vote for Obama, I guess in 2012, I will as my dad says, "drop out of the democracy."

[Austin]

I think it is a little disingenuous to say that the rich do not pay their fair share. A recent article by the Associated Press debunked the Warren Buffett's claim that the rich are taxed less than their secretaries.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-t ... 42868.html

Furthermore, according to the IRS, the top 50% of wage earners contribute over 97% of the income taxes taken in by the government.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometax ... ysmost.htm

The problem is not taxes...there are more than enough taxes being collected. The problem is government spending. In the last 50 years as government spending has skyrocketed, the government has proven time and time agian that it cannot be trusted to spend our money wisely. Just yesterday there was an article regarding the DOJ spending millions of dollars on $16 muffins and $8 coffees.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44609600/ns/us_news-life/

The government needs to go on a spending diet like the rest of us have during this fiscal crisis they created.

*sigh*

Furthermore, according to the IRS, the top 50% of wage earners contribute over 97% of the income taxes taken in by the government.

And. . . is there some other point of this remark. How shocking the top 50% of the wealthiest people in the country pay the majority of the taxes. :roll: It's a proportional deal. It's true that individuals and households below a certain income don't pay income taxes, but they do pay other taxes, such as payroll taxes, etc. Furthermore, much of the wealth of many wealthier people is investment income, which is taxed at a much lower rate than other income, certainly less than the rate that my household paid last year income tax.

Wages for middle and working class people have been stagnant or falling for years. There is little argument that the rich are doing just fine or getting richer, while the middle class is losing ground and the poor are finding it harder and harder to raise their income.

As far as the DOJ spending $16 on a muffin, when was the last time you attended a conference at a pricey hotel? Attendees don't necessarily have the choice of where the conference is held. That's how much a muffin costs in those sorts of places. When I was part of a team that organized statewide law enforcement conferences for my state's AG office, it was held at the convention center, where the accommodations are the Hyatt. The Hyatt is expensive. People do have to eat. Typically government employees who attend such a conference get a per diem, meaning they can spend a certain amount amount for the day to eat. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, that amount was fixed in my experience, so some people would spend a lot on one or two meals, and eat out of vending machine or granola bars they brought from home for other meals. So just because people turned in expense reports with a $16 muffin does not mean that that person spent over the limit set by the agency for which they work.

[dramallama]

Uh, yeah. A flat tax is regressive. It will impact the poor more than the rich, because a larger percentage of the income of the poorest people goes towards necessities of life as opposed to the rich, who have huge amounts of disposable income. It's one of those ideas that sounds great on the surface because it's so simple, but reality ain't that simple. Also, taxes on the rich have increased over time? The top tax rate was 94% in 1945 - it's steadily fallen (with the exception of a couple of blips up and down in the late 80s to early 90s) since then and is now at 35%. I think it's cute how the Republicans idolize the 1950s, all the while ignoring the fact that the top marginal tax rate at that time was still over 90%.

http://www.progressinaction.com/republi ... president/

[emmiedahl]

I think a flat tax on people who make over a certain amount would be a good idea. Like, if you bring in more than a million a year, you pay at least twenty-five percent, with no breaks, no loopholes, nada beyond that. Or whatever a good percentage would be. The problem is not the actual tax rate, but the fact that they can weasel out of paying even that with enough tricky accounting.

[debrand]

I agree there is a disproportion in the amount of wealth distribution in this country. But collecting more taxes from the rich isn't going to change that. The tax rate on the rich has gone up over the years and they are just getting wealthier.

If I were running the country, I'd abolish the IRS and establish a 20% flat tax rate for everybody with no credits are loopholes. But, since that isn't happening, there is nobody in the GOP I'm interested in, and since pigs will fly before I vote for Obama, I guess in 2012, I will as my dad says, "drop out of the democracy."

I used to think that both a flat tax was a good idea. My opinion has changed.

Twenty percent of the working poor's annual income could mean that they can't afford basics like health care or rent.

After a twenty percent tax, a person earning a million dollars annually will still be able to provide the necessities for themselves and their families. In fact the wealthy person will still be quite wealthy after the tax.

If the government uses the money to build bridges and roads, it would help the infrastructure of our country and provide jobs.

[doe]

If look at what people *own* instead of what they *earn*, you can see the disconnect better - the distribution of wealth in this country is nothing like the distribution of taxes.

And even in the supposed "middle class" - I pay a higher rate of taxes than my partner, because part of his income is above the social security payment cap.

Hi, just wanted to chime in for a second and say that in our case, what we own is not representative of what we earn. We've just been lucky to find nice furniture (and a fancy rug) on the side of the road, replied on time to ads on Freecycle or Craigslist, and were lucky enough that my parents upgraded some things of their own and gave us the old stuff. We could not have afforded many of the things we own.

Not trying to be argumentative, it's just worth mentioning. I was on a forum recently had that 40 + pages about what poor means. Many times it was brought up that tvs and other niceties were hand me downs or freebies.

[Witsec2]

The Rand references are because of her basically elevating the idea of selfishness to a religion. "I got mine, screw you" is a pretty fair representation of the attitude of a lot of the worst representatives of the GOP.

Your argument does not answer my question. You rationalize some assumptions/biases you have (Rand elevated "the idea of selfishness to a religion" and "I got mine, screw you" as emblematic of the "worst representatives of the GOP") does not change the fact that Rand's beliefs and the current GOP do not get correlate; the author is still incorrect. The GOP is selfish? Ok, I'll buy that (in the context that selfish=greedy)-- but they didn't get that from Rand, greed existed in government long before she was born.

If the GOP took a Randian approach to politics, I would support it. Alas, it does not, so I do not support it.

The opinion piece, written by a republican (or at least one until recently and he clearly says he is NOT an Obama supporter) does not claim that the democratic party is lily-white. He just basically regards them as less evil or at least the lesser of two evils. Their sins are sins of cowardice and self-interest. Which is a whole different animal than what the GOP is doing. Anybody who kept close track of the "debt ceiling [faux] crisis" and is not drinking the GOP-extremist kool-aid can see that.

I don't care what he has to say about the Democrats-- actually, I don't really care about what this guy has to say at all-- I just see, "oh, Republicans are evil," (not a direct quote from anyone) and it just makes me sick. Both parties are evil and they pit us against each other so we don't pay attention to what's really important-- the fact that they run the whole show and we basically have no say in it.

----

Like all things involving humans, let's remember that one Republican is not a carbon-copy of the GOP leadership, and the includes those who represent us. There is no kool-aid that isn't also being drunk by Democrats.

---

I am hesitant to weigh-in on the debt-ceiling business, but I will weigh in on the idea of taxing the rich...

Picture yourself as wealthy. Not average-wealth, but CEO/heir wealthy. Your whole life has revolved around protecting and growing your assets so that you, or your heirs, don't slide backwards, fiscally. The government says, hey, you make so much money, we want to tax you to spread the wealth around-- but we're going to tax you heavily, because you make a lot of money, and the economy is in shambles.

What do you do? Do you keep your money where it is and pay the exorbitant taxes? Or do you move your money into dividends (or other non-taxable accounts) or overseas to protect yourself from losing a lot of it?

Rich people can move their money around; they have to power (cash-money) and connections to do it. If the government tried to raise taxes on the super-wealthy, the super-wealthy would simply put their money out of reach. This means no tax money, whatsoever, let alone the raised rate.

If you are intrigued by this, or if you think my conclusions are ridiculous, further reading can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell59.1.html.

Another idea to ponder: most, if not all, of the super-wealthy are involved in government, and not one representative- of either party- will ever vote anything into existence that will hurt their, or their special interests', pockets.

Also, about the debt-crisis, this image makes it so perfectly simple: http://i.imgur.com/d0RsV.jpg

As I have a terrible track history on FJ for taking over threads, I will bow out of this conversation before it becomes an argument. I'll be back the next time you all pique my interest!

[Austin]

Well, I'm equally bored by you, mmmkay, so whatever. You can rant about your beloved tea party and the crazy old coot, the eternally unelectable Ron Paul, all you want. President Obama may not win another term, but I can damn sure tell you that Ron Paul will never occupy the White House. Americans are not the most informed voters in the world, I easily admit, but they aren't that stupid. But hey, if he (and his supporters) wants to stick around and split the GOP vote, al la Ralph Nader, I'm all for him.

And if you think the rich aren't already moving their money all the time to avoid paying taxes on it, you're in la-la land. You seem to believe that people are rich because of their incredibly hard work and merit (and so thus deserve to keep all of their money). It seems like a certain number of non-rich Americans buy into this, and the reason for that has been speculated before here on FJ. Maybe if they believe that, they can believe that if they, too, work hard enough and have enough merit, they, too will become rich. lol

Many of these CEOs make literally hundreds of times what their average workers make, and there is no convincing me or any reasonable person that they work hundreds of times harders or are hundreds of times more meritorious than those workers. So much for deserving. :roll:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/ec ... /index.htm

[Bella99]

Hi, just wanted to chime in for a second and say that in our case, what we own is not representative of what we earn. We've just been lucky to find nice furniture (and a fancy rug) on the side of the road, replied on time to ads on Freecycle or Craigslist, and were lucky enough that my parents upgraded some things of their own and gave us the old stuff. We could not have afforded many of the things we own.

Not trying to be argumentative, it's just worth mentioning. I was on a forum recently had that 40 + pages about what poor means. Many times it was brought up that tvs and other niceties were hand me downs or freebies.

I don't think anybody here really cares if someone has nice household goods. I care that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages. I think being able to write off mortgage interest on insanely expensive vacation homes is a big fat gift and inflation hedge for the wealthy. I just spent several years working with people wealthy beyond my dreams of avarice. I have personally filled out expense reports for corp. officers expensing golf and health club memberships. My former overlord routinely put the expense of shipping his pet to his vacation home on the corporate credit card and wrote it off on his taxes. Another one liberated corporate property during a takeover to furnish his home. Nice furniture and a fancy television don't even cross my radar screen.

[Austin]

I don't think anybody here really cares if someone has nice household goods. I care that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages. I think being able to write off mortgage interest on insanely expensive vacation homes is a big fat gift and inflation hedge for the wealthy. I just spent several years working with people wealthy beyond my dreams of avarice. I have personally filled out expense reports for corp. officers expensing golf and health club memberships. My former overlord routinely put the expense of shipping his pet to his vacation home on the corporate credit card and wrote it off on his taxes. Another one liberated corporate property during a takeover to furnish his home. Nice furniture and a fancy television don't even cross my radar screen.

Yeah, I agree, I don't think most of us are concerned about plasma screen televisions or nice rugs. No matter where they came from. Those are not the kind of assets that indicate true wealth. You can find those things in the housing projects.

[doe]

Yeah, I agree, I don't think most of us are concerned about plasma screen televisions or nice rugs. No matter where they came from. Those are not the kind of assets that indicate true wealth. You can find those things in the housing projects.

I agree with these statements. I was replying to Rosa, not the rest of the thread.

[emmiedahl]

But hey, if he (and his supporters) wants to stick around and split the GOP vote, al la Ralph Nader, I'm all for him.

Ralph Nader? The Green Party guy? Do you mean Ross Perot?

[emmiedahl]

I think that the people who will move their money overseas are douchebags who are not paying taxes through various means anyway. If it became a trend, I would be interested in a newspaper publishing a list of these people just so we know who NOT to support or buy from (the Kennedy family would be on it because they are douchebags who keep everything overseas for that reason already). But the average rich person is probably going to suck it up and pay their taxes, the way they did in decades past when the tax rate was several times what it is now. We could start being more stringent about taxing foreign assets, there are ways of dealing with fraud.

Does anyone really think that we should not be taxing the ultra-wealthy because they won't pay it either way? omg, maybe we should stop punishing rapists because the punishment does not prevent it. The ultra-wealthy do not pay their fair share. The middle class should not be subsidizing them.

As for rich=smart. I do think that many people who make six figures earn that because they are exceptionally smart, hardworking, highly motivated, made the right decisions, etc. But no one here is talking about whether your doctor should pay more taxes. We are talking about the Johnson family, the Kennedy family, people who are fabulously wealthy despite no one putting in a full day's work in several generations. As I put it early in the thread, not the merely rich but the super-rich. I support taxing the hell out of estates over one million as well. Inheriting money or a family business that earns billions is pure luck. I have no problem with taxing that. They did not earn it in any way.

[Witsec2]

Well, I'm equally bored by you, mmmkay, so whatever. You can rant about your beloved tea party and the crazy old coot, the eternally unelectable Ron Paul, all you want. President Obama may not win another term, but I can damn sure tell you that Ron Paul will never occupy the White House. Americans are not the most informed voters in the world, I easily admit, but they aren't that stupid. But hey, if he (and his supporters) wants to stick around and split the GOP vote, al la Ralph Nader, I'm all for him.

What you've posted has nothing to do with what I posted.

You are attacking me for having different beliefs than you do. You're not much different than the fundamentalists.

And if you think the rich aren't already moving their money all the time to avoid paying taxes on it, you're in la-la land. You seem to believe that people are rich because of their incredibly hard work and merit (and so thus deserve to keep all of their money).

This is an incorrect assumption and one you have no basis for.

Sorry for going back on my promise; we all know Austin was dying for me to respond. Cause, you know, she was bored by me-- that's why she took the time to respond.

[emmiedahl]

I think the fact that you support Ayn Rand would lead people to believe that you think the rich people are rich because they are better and thus should not share. If not, then what *do* you think about that?

[debrand]

I think that both the GOP and some religious people like some of Ayn Rand's concepts. They use her to bolster their credibility. Glenn Beck has quoted Rand and said that he admired her book, Atlas Shrugged.I have no doubt that Rand would have been horrified that some of the Republicans and Christians conservatives have latched on to her name but they have.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594761,00.html

The link is Beck talking to two guests one is Ayn Rand Institute President, Yaron Brook.

I don't know a lot about Rand, by the way. I just wanted to point out that there are indeed members of the GOP who have somehow managed to wed her libertarian philosophy with fundamentalism and politics.

[emmiedahl]

Ayn Rand would be horrified. She once said something to the extent of: if you believe in God, then you obviously don't believe in yourself.

[Rosa]

Not trying to be argumentative, it's just worth mentioning. I was on a forum recently had that 40 + pages about what poor means. Many times it was brought up that tvs and other niceties were hand me downs or freebies.

I didn't mean "own" like a Porsche or a big-screen TV, I meant "own" like 33% of Walmart (the Walton heirs) - today that's approximately $80 billion. $80,000,000,000 if i counted 0s correctly. Or 2 million acres of land, like Ted Turner - that's as big as some Eastern states. The top 1% of owners in this country own 34% of everything there is to be owned and those numbers are from 2007, before the rest of us lost our shirts in the recession. (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html)

And, taxes DO change that. We use that tax money to put a floor under the other 99%, to build shared infrastructure that allows people to better their lives and positions. Without high enough taxes to do that, there is no chance of a meritocracy at all.

[doe]

I didn't mean "own" like a Porsche or a big-screen TV, I meant "own" like 33% of Walmart (the Walton heirs) - today that's approximately $80 billion. $80,000,000,000 if i counted 0s correctly. Or 2 million acres of land, like Ted Turner - that's as big as some Eastern states. The top 1% of owners in this country own 34% of everything there is to be owned and those numbers are from 2007, before the rest of us lost our shirts in the recession. (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html)

And, taxes DO change that. We use that tax money to put a floor under the other 99%, to build shared infrastructure that allows people to better their lives and positions. Without high enough taxes to do that, there is no chance of a meritocracy at all.

Thanks for clarifying that, Rosa! There is so much of this all being discussed all over the internet right now and I've seen many points similar to yours, only in regards to 'stuff.'

[koolmom]

I read this and I dont' want to believe that the Republicans are this cold blooded. Really, taking down our entire system of government because it may give them more power?If it is true, it is evil and so unAmerican(despite how they like to bill themselves). It could also backfire against them. I mean what if it creates people who hate the government so much that they are willing to kill officals?

That's what Germans said about the Nazis. No one in their right minds could ever believe the Nazis were not above killing their own kind until it was too late to stop them. They don't think it'll backfire against them because they don't see the bigger picture. If they did, they wouldn't have gotten as far as they have.

They also figure in "we may lose a few, but we'll still take over the world", so to speak, if not outright literally. If they happen to fail, we know who they'll blame it on, don't we? So in their twisted minds, it's a win-win situation until they reach some kind of goal nearest to what they have in mind...keep in mind they had to cause a few shipwrecks to throw people off course -- some of it planned, some not, but still in all, did we see any Repubs actually trying to STOP some of the policies happening to the American people? No, we didn't -- either they were active participants or stood idly by until the smoke cleared. I don't bode well for this country at all...end of rant.

[JesusFightClub]

I didn't mean "own" like a Porsche or a big-screen TV, I meant "own" like 33% of Walmart (the Walton heirs) - today that's approximately $80 billion. $80,000,000,000 if i counted 0s correctly. Or 2 million acres of land, like Ted Turner - that's as big as some Eastern states. The top 1% of owners in this country own 34% of everything there is to be owned and those numbers are from 2007, before the rest of us lost our shirts in the recession. (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri ... ealth.html)

And, taxes DO change that. We use that tax money to put a floor under the other 99%, to build shared infrastructure that allows people to better their lives and positions. Without high enough taxes to do that, there is no chance of a meritocracy at all.

But a meritocracy isn't a good thing, either.

The idea comes from a wee book called Rise of the Meritocracy, which was a satire and a dystopia, not a gameplan. It's a kinder gentler version of Rand's thinking on the surface, but it still relies on the same underlying principle, which is that those at the top are there because they are good, and those at the bottom are there because they are bad. Imagine how the guy with Downs Syndrome who sweeps the MaccyD's carpark would be regarded in a true meritocracy. At best as a sort of pet, at worst, well. You can imagine.

It is a while since I read the book and my memory may be faulty. But I remember that by various tests, intelligence and so forth, the little meritocrats were selected young. Also that there was an increasingly growing disaffected underclass. The meritocrats have just so much more skills and ability than everyone else, you see. They manage you and they know what's best for you. You might have an IQ of 90 but strong opinions on council planning applications or a great skill in baking apple pies or whatever. None of this will matter a jot. You couldn't jump through the required hoops so that's you.

It's actually a profoundly antidemocratic idea, even by the standards of bourgeois democracy, because it introduces and enforces the idea of moral good into a capitalist system. A lot of people attempt to do this (Rand being a striking example) and it always produces a bad result.

[Austin]

Ralph Nader? The Green Party guy? Do you mean Ross Perot?

Both are examples of third-party candidates who split the vote in particular party and caused the party-candidate to lose. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I was just trying to say that if Paul wants to stick around and do that, that's fine by me. I had just read an opinion piece about Ralph Nader earlier yesterday, so that's probably why he came to mind first. But yes, Nader split the democratic vote (Gore) and Perot split the GOP vote (H.W.Bush).

[Nothing2CHere]

I don't care what he has to say about the Democrats-- actually, I don't really care about what this guy has to say at all-- I just see, "oh, Republicans are evil," (not a direct quote from anyone) and it just makes me sick. Both parties are evil and they pit us against each other so we don't pay attention to what's really important-- the fact that they run the whole show and we basically have no say in it.

Um, both parties are evil - yes, the author of the article states that. In the opening paragraphs. OK, technically he uses the word "rotten." He states that they're both rotten, but in different ways. From his point of view, having intimate knowledge of how the party works, as someone who worked for 28 years as a Republican Congressional staffer, he sees the GOP as being the more evil of the two evils, and then explains during the rest of the lengthy article why he believes this.

Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"

Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten." -"Double Indemnity" (1944)

Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma.

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.

In my opinion, attitudes such as, "I don't really care about what this guy has to say at all-- I just see, 'oh, Republicans are evil'" are a big reason why this country is in the state it's in. Everyone believes that THEY are RIGHT and the other side is wrong, and when attempts at dialogue are made, people put their fingers in their ears and go, "La la la, I can't hear you!" Or in this case, hold their hands over their eyes and say, "La la la, I can't read what you wrote! You wrote that Republicans are evil, and that's the ONLY message I'm going to take from your 6,000 word essay!"