|

GOP no longer opposed to higher taxes

My, my! It seems that some of the Republican candidates for president are DEEPLY OFFENDED that poor people pay no federal income taxes:

This is the Republican Party we have all come to expect: the party that will fight against any tax increases, no matter how sensible, no matter how fiscally constrained the budget is, simply as a matter of orthodoxy. But you might have heard another number being bandied about recently: the “fact” that 47 percent of Americans pay no taxes. Now, if we ignored payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and all other forms of taxes besides federal income taxes, that would be true. But for an anti-tax Republican, the idea that nearly half of all Americans pay no income taxes should be a welcome statistic; it would mean, after all, that we’re nearly halfway toward ensuring that no Americans pay federal income taxes at all.

But no. Far from being a source of pride for the party of low taxes and limited government, this is a source of consternation, and the Republican presidential field will not tolerate this sort of injustice.

(Snip)

When all four of a party’s presidential candidates who have held leads in national polls advocate for raising taxes on the poor and middle class, that party can no longer call itself opposed to taxes, no matter how fervently they try to oppose President Obama’s popular proposal to ask more from those who are best off. The Republican Party is no longer the party of lower taxes. Instead, it has transformed itself into a cult of Ayn Rand’s objectivism, where so-called “producers” are rewarded with favorable policy outcomes and the “parasites” are punished for their lack of work ethic. In Herman Cain’s America, after all, you only have yourself to blame if you’re unemployed. And in Mitt Romney’s America, the best way to solve the foreclosure crisis is to turn people out of their homes faster so investors can make a quicker profit off of buying them.

Share:

9 Comments

  1. So you have a plan in which only the rich pay more taxes and our federal fiscal budget is balanced and our federal debt is brought under control?

  2. Wow! It’s not even noon, and doc is already imbibing in the plutocratic Kool-Aid. He thinks it would be terrible to require millionaires to pay the same tax rates they paid under Bill Clinton, even though the vast majority of Americans are in favor of it.

  3. The complete Internal Revenue Code is more than 24 megabytes in length, and contains more than 3.4 million words; printed 60 lines to the page, it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages.
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/

    I know you know everything, Pat, and have certainly commited to memory all 3.4 million words in the Internal Revenue Code (haven’t we all). So you can stop with all the “pay the same tax rate as under Clinton” B.S. There’s no way you or anyone else can predict what “rate” a millionaire or billionaire would pay when accountants and tax attorneys have this code in their possession. The only way to REALLY affect tax revenues is to overhaul this monstrosity (created by both Republicans and Democrats in the last century since 1913). And anyone with more than a reptilian brain-stem knows that’s not going to happen.

  4. Not surprisingly you did not answer my question. It’s so hard to be a liberal these days. You know with the incontrovertible math facts and looming fiscal disaster and all?

    I would be happy to pay taxes even a bit higher than the Clinton rates if it was part of an actual plan to put this country on the path to fiscal sanity.

    Of course fiscal sanity doesn’t mix with crazed liberal politics and class warfare….

  5. doc: The funniest thing about your bugaboo concerning “class warfare” is that you apparently consider yourself upper-class. You probably imagine yourself to be a member of the landed gentry nobly staving off the rabble.

    Your visions of acquired aristocracy are so laughable. You’re a real social climber, aren’t you?

  6. Pat Cunningham says:

    …”to require millionaires to pay the same tax rates they paid under Bill Clinton, even though the vast majority of Americans are in favor of it”.

    The vast majority of Americans don’t make squat. French Revolution-take everything from the royals and landed gentry, and spread it out to the “common homme.” I don’t think their standard of living was improved much (although Napoleon did give an awful lot of men jobs in the army and navy).

    If we take everything from the “rich”, it still wouldn’t be enough to satisfy our government’s and “little people’s” demands for more, more, more. Sooner or later, debt comes due, and history has shown what becomes of debtor nations. If not conquered outright, then slow death from within. The only real way to grow tax revenue is to grow economic growth and jobs. Any real ideas on THAT one, Pat (and please, don’t bring up Obama’s “jobs bill”, or qualdrupling the army to invade Russia).

  7. Ooh! Terry’s worried about the masses taking everything from the rich, as if there’s been a trend toward that in recent decades. He’s apparently unaware of the increasing income inequality in this country.

    Well, he needn’t worry his little head about the plight of the rich. They’ll somehow survive the outrageous schemes of the socialistic Democrats. They always have — even when their kind registered his kind of complaints against FDR. Remember FDR, the man they called “a traitor to his class”?

  8. You keep writing but you still won’t answer my question. I guess I’ll just chalk that up to my being correct yet again.

    As far as considering myself upper-class? Well the President keeps telling me I’m a millionaire (even though I haven’t ever made that much) and the “occupy” crazies keep telling me I am in the
    ” lucky” 1%.

    Now you accuse me of being a wanna be. What am I to do?

  9. Pat Cunningham says:

    “He’s apparently unaware of the increasing income inequality in this country”.

    Hardly. In case you hadn’t noticed in the last 40 years, Pat, we live in an increasingly complex technological society. Your high school dropout son can’t just go over to the Belvidere assembly plant and get a $50 an hour job putting a bolt on the door of a Dodge all day. If you would REALLY like to know who the 1% ers are, as well as the 10% ers, bottom 50% ers, etc. check this out:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/mulbrandon-visualizing-economics-tbp-conference/

    It turns out (lo and behold!) that the people at the top of the income scale are doctors, lawyers, business executives, business owners, SOME hollywood/sports types, engineers, scientists, (I hope you get the drift here). Peons at the bottom are continuously being replaced by machines (and smarter and smarter machines at that). It’s called progress (my dad went to the World’s Fair in Chicago in 1933 when he was six. You know what it was called? A CENTURY OF PROGRESS.

    If you have little or no education, you are not going to make much in American society any more, that’s pretty much a given. And, if you don’t have much money, education, brains, or drive, you won’t be able to make and then save (read that INVEST) much either. Farm jobs are gone, and the factory jobs that replaced them are gone. It’s the 21st century now, time to use your brain and not your back. Americans already get 15 years of virtually FREE education (K-12, plus 2 or more years at a community college). If they don’t want to avail themselves of this, why should the workers be taxed at European rates to support a permanent underclass? This ain’t Greece (yet).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>