The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

How can Anyone Oppose Higher Taxes on the Rich?

On a near party-line vote Republicans blocked Obama's attempts to make sure that millionaires pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. Why do so many low-income and middle-income Americans oppose such commonsense pollicies?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on April 16, 2012 at 10:42pm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on April 17, 2012 at 7:57am

Thanks for the pic, Richard.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on April 16, 2012 at 11:05pm

Yes, they think trickle down economics is the answer to the bad economy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Simeone on April 16, 2012 at 11:12pm

Except for the fact that trickle down economics has never worked that view makes complete sense. Why is it that poor people are fine paying more in taxes than wealthy people? You'd think greed would make that impossible.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on April 17, 2012 at 8:06am

Found this book called "Unequal Democracy" by Larry M. Bartels, you guys (especially those of you who think trickle-down economics work, ahem!) should check it out. A link http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8664.html and a brief summary:

"Using a vast swath of data spanning the past six decades, Unequal Democracy debunks many myths about politics in contemporary America, using the widening gap between the rich and the poor to shed disturbing light on the workings of American democracy. Larry Bartels shows the gap between the rich and poor has increased greatly under Republican administrations and decreased slightly under Democrats, leaving America grossly unequal. This is not simply the result of economic forces, but the product of broad-reaching policy choices in a political system dominated by partisan ideologies and the interests of the wealthy.

Bartels demonstrates that elected officials respond to the views of affluent constituents but ignore the views of poor people. He shows that Republican presidents in particular have consistently produced much less income growth for middle-class and working-poor families than for affluent families, greatly increasing inequality. He provides revealing case studies of key policy shifts contributing to inequality, including the massive Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the erosion of the minimum wage. Finally, he challenges conventional explanations for why many voters seem to vote against their own economic interests, contending that working-class voters have not been lured into the Republican camp by "values issues" like abortion and gay marriage, as commonly believed, but that Republican presidents have been remarkably successful in timing income growth to cater to short-sighted voters.

Unequal Democracy is social science at its very best. It provides a deep and searching analysis of the political causes and consequences of America's growing income gap, and a sobering assessment of the capacity of the American political system to live up to its democratic ideals."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Simeone on April 17, 2012 at 8:35am

Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion already. I'm looking forward to checking out that book Phoenix-Wanderer. This issue has interested me for a very long time.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jedi Wanderer on April 17, 2012 at 9:51am

You're welcome Jonathan, and since I don't have the time to get to that book right now, much as I'd like to, if you do get a chance to look at it, will you check back in with me and let me know what you think?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on April 17, 2012 at 9:38am

To be more thoughtful about this question, there is more to it than theories of trickle down economics. I think you have to ask, and listen to, voters who represent working class and middle class Americans and see what they really say. I don't know that a lot of them know about "trickle down" economics. Other factors could include, aligning themselves with the "moral" issue of the Republican right wing (religion being their opiate), attitudes about authoritarianism (that being the right wing, again), the fantasy of somehow "striking it rich" and wanting to be able to keep it all, the attitude the rich know how to get rich, so would pass that on to the country if elected. It's also the "package" that the right wing offers - reactionary social attitudes, the sense of security that authoritarian regimes provide (even if false), the opportunity to scapegoat disinfranchesed people so that blame for bad times is not in the hands of the working class and middle class, the security of feeling "right". As for why republican politicians vote against taxes for the rich, it's the rich who pay them and help keep them in office.

Much of this is speculation on my part. I much prefer actual data.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on April 17, 2012 at 10:10am

I was listening to Ed Shultz on the radio yesterday and they were talking about this. I'm pretty sure that's which show I was listening to at the time, lol, I listen to a lot of them. Someone was saying that people that align with the rich might think well everybody has the right to earn as much money as they can and then keep it. If they take money from the rich people, they might take it from me ( them). They don't get that it's a privilege to live in a country that makes you able to earn that much money. Also very rich people get their money from investing and then get tax-breaks. Why should it matter if you get your income from working or investing? If you get income, it should be taxed the same. There shouldn't be tax-breaks for wealthy people. If you don't help to bring everyone up in a society there will be anarchy. No man is an island.;)