Do you think that the rich should have to pay?

[holiday]

One of the things I keep arguing about with someone who makes about 50,000 a year so would totally benefit from a democratic president is how unfair making the rich pay for the poor is.

This is how they feel:

I guess I feel strongly that most of the people who are on the
top have worked very hard and probably worked more hours a week than the
average person, taken risks, and have been self motivated. They should
feel the need to give back to the community but they don't owe people
who make bad choices or people who don't want to work that hard any money. I want less government and I don't think we should have to be taxed to pay for social programs. We would have more money and be able to give to charities for what we want. The rich are the ones that spend and we benefit.
They buy our products, they spend their money, invest in our businesses,
the stock market. They will always be rich. They will make their
money. The more you take in taxes, the higher they charge for the
products and the middle class pays for it. Think about it, you tax them
more, the money goes to the poor, products and services go up to cover
the increase in tax and is carried on to the consumer.



I just don't know how to get thru to this person?

[klook]

1. Well, for starters, your tax dollar is not spent entirely on poor people

Have your wanna-be-a-have-more friend read Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes by William Gates Sr.

Of course Gates is talking specifically about the Estate Tax, but his basic premise applies to all taxation. We should all pay something back to the society that has enabled us to be productive, comfortable citizens.

[ThorsHammer]

8. Great points

I hate the exemptions on the Inheritance tax, and have no sympathy for people in this bracket. Given that the government must raise money through some form of taxes, it is much more fair to take from those who haven't done a thing to earn it (Rockefellers, Hiltons, etc) than from those who work every day (small businesses, salaried workers). IMO, passing on that quantity of wealth leads to a stratified society. Reasonable limits could be set, with the amounts above that taxed more heavily.

[stepnw1f]

54. Very Well Put

Couldn't have said it better.

[EndElectoral]

57. Study the history of the IRS, and look at the rates in Ike's days...

These issues are not new!

[ibegurpard]

2. The rich should shoulder a larger share of the tax burden

because the poor have to spend most of their money on basic necessities. Once basic necessities are taken care of, the rich have much more discretionary income.
It's not a matter of penalizing the rich...it's a matter of getting tax money from the people who can most afford it.
The argument should be made from a fairness standpoint...is it fair for people who can barely afford housing and to put food on the table to be paying more in taxes while someone who can AFFORD to pay more doesn't?

[DenverDem]

3. The truly rich are that way because capitalism enriches capital holders.

The system is set up to benefit those with capital and to exploit those who actually do work that produces products or services that further benefit capital holders. It has nothing to do with gawd's approval or being the result of hard work at all.

You can bootstrap yourself into HAVING capital by creating some sort of value in a business through sweat equity, but after having two businesses fail (one because of stupid partners in the 80's and one because of 9/11 and the business contraction it caused in the 00's) and finally after two long years of getting deep in debt (to repacious capital holding banks) my third company is starting to have some traction and making some "profit", I can tell you from personal experience that good ideas and 80 hour weeks are no guarantee of making even 50K. I made 18k last year and will make 36K this year with a lot of luck, and I own the freaking company. We employ two people part time, beyond myself and my partner, pay taxes quarterly and provide valuable services to our clients and created this out of absolutely nothing beginning in September '03, so it can be done, but it will nearly kill your ass. And you won't get "rich".

[bemildred]

4. The poor don't have any money.

Does he think only the middle class, what's left of it, or
the poor should pay?

His argument is contrary to simple observation, so I
would call it "faith based" and I don't expect you will
get anywhere arguing with him, nor do I see why you would
want to.

For example: "I guess I feel strongly that most of the people
who are on the top have worked very hard and probably worked
more hours a week than the average person, taken risks, and
have been self motivated."

This is false, most of the very rich in this country got that
way by inheritance, trust funds etc. and it is well nigh impossible
to get really rich without working an angle. Do you really think
Bill Gates, for instance, earned all those billions by the sweat of
his brow?

His theorizing about markets and how products are priced etc. are
also wrong. Taxes are applied to profit, so they reduce the
net profit, but that does nothing in particular to the price.

When you tax the rich, they get screwed more and you get screwed
less, why do you think the rich spend so much money spreading this
crap to make us think we should not tax them? If it really didn't
come out of their pocket like this guys says, why would they care
if they get taxed or not?

Rubbish.

[AP]

16. Which is why middle class earned income earners are left holding the bag.

I just don't understand why so many people have no clue what's going on around them.

We have an economy that delivers so much wealth to people at the top through an unfair tax code and through the government giving private companies monopoly power over our pocketbooks.

Yet middle class people have this fucked up idea that their interests lie with the super wealthy and that taxes go to handouts for the poor?

Come on!

[Yupster]

58. The inheritance rich

don't pay any income taxes.

They have their money in tax free bonds which are coincidentally tax free, or in stocks.You only pay tax on the gain when you sell a stock, and if you die with it, the tax on gain is forgiven.

[TwentyFive]

5. Have you tried to get them off this issue?

My opinion is that talking economic conservatives into becoming economic liberals is an uphill battle at best. Avoid these arguments, and go to areas where you might both agree.

For example, switch the debate to social issues. Most economic conservatives have a "leave me alone" attitude - and probably don't like what the GOP is doing with the Religious Right. Your goal should be to provide a safe, non-judgemental ear where these people can voice their concerns about all the Bush/Religious Right plans for censoring entertainment, policing the bedroom, Patriot Act, freedom of expression, etc.

Look at what the GOP does with lower/middle income social conservatives. Social wedge issues are front and center. The GOP is successful because they get social conservatives to vote Against their economic interests. If the GOP can get cash strapped people to vote against their own economic interests, then it should be a EASY for the Dems to get wealthy people to agree to pay a LITTLE more in taxes - in exchange for a more socially tolerant society.

And if you want to argue economic issues, tell them what your entire argurment about is another 5% tax on incomes over $200,000. Amazing, isn't it? Not exactly a huge amount...especially when you consider where we are headed in world relations, preserving the environment for future generations, and respect for diversity in our own society.

[pelagius]

6. The rich have profited from public expenditure more than...

...most Americans. Their wealth is possible only because we have a highly developed legal and physical infrastructure that makes their business possible.

If hard work and long hours were all it took to be rich, ditch diggers, forest fire fighters, retail workers, and others in similar occupations would be living in mansions.

There is no such thing as a self-made man. Anyone he thinks he is self-made is delusional.

[kodi]

30. bingo.

they should pay more because they use more of civilization.

that guff of the rugged individualist is propaganda. whenever i have to deal with a person who acts like they read atlas shrugged an hour ago while downing a bottle of cheap wine and spouts randian individualism, i ask them if john galt made the shoes he used while walking around on his plateau.

no man is an island.

[Rainbowreflect]

7. I totally disagree with your.

"I guess I feel strongly that most of the people who are on the
top have worked very hard and probably worked more hours a week than the
average person, taken risks, and have been self motivated. They should
feel the need to give back to the community but they don't owe people
who make bad choices or people who don't want to work that hard any money. I want less government and I don't think we should have to be taxed to pay for social programs. We would have more money and be able to give to charities for what we want. The rich are the ones that spend and we benefit."

You cannot tell me that someone like bush, or others who inherited everything they have worked harder than someone like my mother.

My mother raised 4 children alone, my father died through no fault of theirs, and she went back to school & taught for many years. She was never handed anything. She never requested or received food stamps, housing, AFDC or any other public assistance. She not only worked, cut corners & raised her children she also volunteered, gave to community, and helped everyone she could.

I get so pissed when I hear that rich people worked harder & deserve what the have. And that poor people are that way by their faults. Sure there are a few examples that are true, but for the most part it is bushit.

[elehhhhna]

10. That type of thinking helped Louis & Marie Antoinette lose their noggins.

[The Wielding Truth]

13. Since when is $50,000 a year rich? Think that person unless single and

living at home has no idea how the really rich live. Earning or scrapping for his wages is the reason he feels unable to give anymore. You should not ask him to support more than the truly wealthy. They only look for ways to make it grow they don't really need it to survive . This guy does. Give him a break and go after the real wheeler-dealers.

[Mick Knox]

68. 50K is not rich

If it was I would be much happier.

[AP]

15. And the biggest problem with the tax code is that it PUNISHES wealth from

work while totally taking the burden off of people who make money from being wealthy.

We tax earned income twice what we tax unearned income. Bush wants to totally remove the tax on unearned and inherited wealth. What's left? Income from labor.

Society and the economy is like an automobile. Part of it is like the fuel. Some people are the drivers. Then you have the transmission and the tires. You have the coolant system. You have R&D and a garage incase anything break downs. All the parts move together to take that car forward.

Well, people who work for a living are the engine of the economy.

Bush wants to make that engine do all the work. Bush's tax code tells the tires and the fuel and the driver that they don't need to do anything. But it says to the engine, "you, engine, are all on your own. The pressure is enitrely on you to move society down the road." That's what the tax code does when it tells people who inherit money and people who make all their wealth from dividend or capital gains income that they don't have to contribute to paying for the infrastructure that makes America move forward.

If you have an engine revving up to 15,000 rpm all on it's own with no help from anybody else, the car isn't going anywhere and that engine is going to overheat and break down.

That's where our economy is going thanks, in large part, to the tax code.

[tsuki]

50. How true.

As a small business person, I am sure that I will lose my business tax exemption for employee sponsored health insurance and interest expense.

I work at my business every day. I am a working person.

Bush was "revenue neutral" taxing. That means to tax the working, exempt the wealthy.

[Yupster]

59. What did Bush inherit?

I don't think Bush inherited any or hardly any money.

What he got were family connections.

When he lived in my town, he lived in a very ordinary house, worked a regular job, went to little league games, ate at regular restaurants and taught bible study. Everyone in town did something with him. In fact, I saw Laura's mom in a Mexican restaurant about a year or two ago.

The only thing different about Bush was his connections. He was never any Rockefeller or Kennedy.

[Heimdallr]

60. The Bushes are one of the wealthiest families in the country

Major league shareholders in Eli Lilley, amongst others.

[Yupster]

62. I have no doubt that the Bush family is super rich

I know W is too.

But...

I'm pretty sure he didn't inherit any, or much of it. Not until he was already a millionaire already anyway.

The reason I know this is I know how he lived from his late 20's to early 40's. He sure didn't live rich.

[LOSTintheSOUTH]

65. So he inherited connections? Guess What? That's better than money.

Every one of G-Dub's business ventures was funded by either his father, or one of his father's friends.

Although Im sure 99% of the DUers have seen Fahrenheit 911 and know all about this.

[Yupster]

67. Agree with you Lost in the south

From one lost southerner to another.

I was just correcting the poster above who said Bush inheritted everything.

I don't think he inheritted any or hardly any money. What he got was a rolodex, which as you said is better.

[AP]

9. the percentage of tax money that goes to the poor is tiny. Tax money

generally goes to providing an infransture that creates wealth. The courts. The roads. Schools. Police. Fire Departments. National defense. It all creates wealth. The problem with taxes is that they make the people who benefit the least bear the biggest burden and the people who benefit the most bear the smallest burden. The working and middle class are paying for a society that delivers almost all its benefits to the wealthiest.

That's unfair and it's also un-Christian.

[holiday]

12. I honestly believe

that Bush really thinks that if you are poor is because you are lazy.

[AP]

18. The poor aren't Bush's biggest target. The middle class are.

Bush will keep the heads of the poor just above water so that people don't get distracted. It's the middle class who are rapidly loosing their wealth whom Bush has in his sights. He wants their money to either go to private corporations directly (whether it's an energy company, an insurance company, or a credit card company) or he wants it to go to the government in taxes so that the government can then give it to a private company like a bomb making company or a company that makes educational tests, or someother company selling it's shit (that people don't need) to the government at inflated prices.

It's a plantation mentality. Slaves were kept poor and powerless, but not so hungry that they couldn't work for the man. Bush sees the middle class as the wage slaves to keep padding the profits of the annointed corporations.

People get a clue: Bush isn't about driving America into ruin (although that's a very likely consequence of his policies). Bush is about destroying the middle class. America is going to be a nation of wage slaves and super rich with no inbetween.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Agree. The middle class is the real threat to the rich,

because they are the ones who can, sometimes, make their way into the clubhouse and take a part of their pie. The poor are the labor base that the rich need, and they are no threat as a group to the power of the rich. Not unless they rise up en masse to drag his lordship out of the manor house. And we have 'moral values' thrown at them to keep that from happening.

[AP]

26. They're the people who were getting SBA loans and starting small business-

es that were forcing the bigger businesses to innovate and price compete, cutting into profits.

The rich don't like the middle class not because they don't want to open the doors to the clubhouse. It's because they don't want the threat to their guaranteed monopoly profits. That's why Clinton increased SBA funding and that's why Bush cut it.

But more importantly, the middle class is in Bush's sites because that's where the money is. These are the people Republicans want to spend 110% of their annual incomes on the consumer goods that will make the super rich even richer.

The middle class are going to be the wage slaves for the Republican planation they've envisioned.

[denverbill]

11. Which would you rather have?

A job paying $1,000,000/year at a tax rate of 50%, or a job paying $50,000/year at a 28% tax rate?

I sure get tired of ultra-wealthy people whining about their high taxes. Rich people in this country are among the least taxed in the world, and it STILL isn't enough for them. They don't fight the wars. They live in gated communities to protect them from crime. Their jobs don't get outsourced, even though I'm sure SOMEBODY in India could do a better job as CEO of Halliburton for FAR, FAR less than $10,000,000/year.

Hell, you wanna pay me $1,000,000/year, I'll even consent to you taxing my FULL salary for Social Security, making my tax rate 58%. I'd still take home 10 times more than the people netting $36,000.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. 36K sounds like wealth to me,

and I work 2 jobs, 58hrs/wk.

At least I have good insurance.

[AP]

28. Only a fool would want to pay less tax on less money. A lot of middle

class right wingers don't appreciate that a great deal of their tax money is an investment so that they can have bigger salaries. When you pay for schools and courts and roads and all that other stuff, society is greasing the skids for commerce, recreating a middle class, and ensuring that there's more money for everyone to strive for.

Of course, that's not how republicans spend tax money, but that's why they shouldn't be voting for Republicans.

[ComerPerro]

14. George W Bush

never worked a day in his life, described himself as "basically a media creation" in 1988, was a drug abuser and an alcoholic who has been arrested, AWOL, and busted for DUI, presided over failed business venture after failed business venture, was brought under investigation for insider trading, was horribly unqualified when he ran for Governor as Texas, and was certianly not qualified to be president (as 9/11 proved). We pay him $400k a year and he barely even shows up for work.

Now he is trying to make sure that he and his buddies can shift the tax burden on to the rest of America and the future generations.

Some people truly do work hard, and they should be able to enjoy the success that they have earned.

But, sadly, a lot of people lie, cheat, steal, and inherit their way into wealth. Just look at Bush and his buddy Ken Lay.

[ThorsHammer]

17. AP, great points, I had the same idea

I don't see why we can't raise taxes on inheritances/trust funds/etc. If government has to raise money through taxation, it is much more fair to take it from the heirs/heiresses who haven't done a thing to earn it (Rockefellers, Waltons, Hiltons, etc) than from the people who are working every day for their money. I'm surprised this issue of wealth vs. income hasn't caught on more, as I would guess that the vast majority would be for it.

[AP]

21. Bottom line, you can't put the yolk of taxation entirely on the people...

whom you are starving and wipping and brutalizing and who are in most jeopardy, and whom you need to be the strongest in the longterm.

If you need to pull America forward and if you have a lot of weight to pull, and your policies have made a lot of people who haven't been working hard at all very strong, and they've made your strongest ox the weakest, it's time to put the harnesses on those others and ask them to pull according to what they have. We have got to make the middle class earned income earner stronger, not wealker, so that we can all work together to start creating a lot of wealth. And when that happens, we'll take a look around and maybe then reset tax priorities -- we'll move those harnesses around, and give some of the ox a rest.

If work is the thing that's going to make America progress forward, you have to REWARD work, and not punish it. Our tax code absolutely punishes people who work for a living, and it gives everyone else a free ride.

Incidentally, when the US imposed income and inheritance taxes, the richest families got even wealthier because they made so much money off the new middle class. We all do better when we all do better. The question is, how do you pay for a society where we all have a chance to do better. The answer is you do everything exactly the opposite of what Bush is doing.

[Yupster]

61. The problem Thor is that we

tax income and the uber rich don't have that much income. What they have is wealth. You ca raise taxes to 90 % and you won't get at the Rockefellers and the Kennedys. They don't have giant incomes. They have lots of wealth.

They may make $ 100 million on a stock, but they don't have to pay tax on it because they get a stepped up basis on inheritance. The rest of the money is in tax free bonds.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. IMHO, investment income should be taxed at least 50% --

After all, this is money the investors don't need for regular expenses, so they aren't being deprived. The money they make off their investment is still more than they would get if they didn't invest.

As a side benefit, it would also encourage CEOs to change their compensation packages, so it would be more obvious how overpaid they are.

[AP]

24. It should be taxed progressively. If you make 10,000 per year, you should

be entitled to make money from investing and capital gains which isn't taxed at a marginal rate that is the same as someone who makes 100,000 or 100 million. There's is no way in the world a poor person should be paying a price to the gov't for an additional dollar in wealth that is the same as a super rich person pays.

If you put all your wealth at risk and make another dollar in a risky investment, you shouldn't be punished by the tax code. If you put a tiny % of your wealth at risk in a no risk investment, and you'll still be rich no matter what, you should probably pay a little more than the poor person. If you want society to progress forward in a way that's productive, you have to have the right incentives, and punitive tax codes for small investors (and for people who work for a living) do not create the right incentives.

Maybe 50% marginal rates make sense for the next million dollars in income for a person who makes 500 million, but it doesn't make sense for a person who makes 10,000 a year on the capital gains from selling her banana stand.

That banana stand owner is basically a working class person who worked her ass off, took a risk, and you want that to be an financially rewarding experience so that she can that take the income made from that on to another project. You want to reward her labors, not punish them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Good point. n/t

[sandnsea]

20. Reaganism

First, prices are set by what the market will bear. If cheap labor meant cheap products, everything in this country would cost $1.00. When industries move overseas, we'd notice prices of goods dropping to 25% of what they were. They don't. A pair of Nikes is just as expensive as they ever were. The stockholder and CEO takes the profit. Labor is being villainized and exploited. Just like in the Golden Age.

Second, Reaganism has also wanted people to believe the poor don't work hard and therefore don't deserve a living wage. They're lazy, not motivated, etc. That was half the point of unions in the beginning, backbreaking labor deserves pay and respect. When Abraham Lincoln said it is a sin to take "bread out of the mouth of labor" through taxation, he meant workers, not plantation owners and business owners.

Third, Carnegie said that in order for America to continue to be the land of opportunity for all and maintain democracy, there needed to be a tax on wealth. The accumulation of wealth was not good for this country because of political power or because of removing money from the economic engine. He supported the inheritance tax and supported putting money back into this country to improve society and better create that opportunity for all through education, libraries, etc.

Fourth, so much of monetary policy and public policy is nothing more than manipulations for corporate interests. The economy currently works for the wealthy corporate, not the citizen. The sliding dollar is a great example.

There's alot of other examples in this thread as to why the thinking in your post and that I have heard spouted by so so many, is just wrong. It uses simplistic supply/demand economics we learned in the 8th grade to manipulate people to vote against their best interest. Simplistic economics that just don't fit anymore, if they ever did.

[tjdee]

22. 50K is NOT rich--that is the Republican propaganda talking.

It's so funny that some think their piddly 50 grand a year is big bucks. This to me is the greatest achievement of the Republican media machine. They probably think they're in that top 1% (BWHAHAHAHA) and that Bush's tax cut was specially for them and helped them SO much. And then they whine about how their taxes are supporting the poor.

But you know what? The rich people/companies get out scot free. Most Republicans worship at the feet of these people because they have been sold a pack of goods which allows them to be taxed at the expense of the ultra-rich, and to like it.

Until these people understand there are numbers of people making 50K on their INVESTMENTS alone, paying LESS TAX on that, they just won't get it.

[pelagius]

29. In the area in which I live...

...a family income of $50,000 a year will qualify you for subsidized, low-cost housing. If it exists and is available, which here in Reagan country, it isn't.

[prayin4rain]

31. Most of the very wealthy inherited.

If not their entire fortune, plenty of money to set them on their way to their own fortune.

Second of all I look at taxes like this. No man is an island. They did not pick that money off of trees. They have a little bit of a lot of peoples' money. Wal-mart executives have a little of a lot of people's money. So, living in this community has been VERY VERY VERY profitable for them. Their skills, and their talents, and their ideas are valuable to others in the community and the executives are compensated for that. Now, this other guy has grown up poor, has had very little education, and does not possess any skill or talent that the community he lives in finds valuable. It has not been profitable for him to be a member of this community.

I remember when I was 18 waitng tables in a hip sushi place where I made $150 bucks a night. I would always feel guilty when our dishwasher would come in, an older mexican man, probably trying to support a family, obviously has just come in from his day job in some kind of construction, worked twice as hard as me and got SQUAT. It is not as profitable for him to be a member of this community as it is for me. We should not have to contribute equally.

The bottom line is to me, a person does not just get rich on their own, the community helps by buying their product, and the roads, and the police force and the entire capitilistic system feeds off eachother. It is very personally profitable for some and not for others. So, the more profitable it has been for a person to be a member of any community the more that person should have to contribute or give back to the community.

[CAcyclist]

32. The world benefits when the stratification between rich and poor is

narrower.Wealth= power and taxing the rich helps to equalize the peoples' power.

The rich benefit the most from the system :they then have the responsibility to pay more. When the things that the rich do hurt the environment and hurt other people, economically or socially, then society has a responsibility to minimize that damage by making them pay more.

For example, one of the reasons the housing market has gone up so much is that more of the wealthy are buying 4 and 5 houses. This makes it harder for average Americans to afford homes. Yes, more people own homes right now, but wait until the interest rates rise - that's going to have a dramatically negative effect on the poorest households.

Many of the wealthy are buying mansions in the foothills and cause the rest of us to waste money on infrastructure, cut back on the people's commons and waste money on fire suppression and rebuilding their homes if they don't have adequate insurance due to loss from a fire or mudslide.

Other wealthy people buy very wasteful cars which pollute the environment and put undue strain on the roads which we all have to pay for.

Other wealthy people create demand for plastic surgery so that talented doctors whose education is mostly supported by the general public go into the field of plastic surgery and put more workload on the rest of the doctors, enough so that now hospitals are looking overseas for doctors to treat the poor.

Wealthy people don't need to send their kids to public schools - they can afford private schools, so they are often the ones opposing more adequate funding for public schools.

Wealthy people generally don't have freeways and other annoyances running through their neighborhoods - they have the influence to put those freeways and airports and power plants in poorer neighborhoods.

But these annoyances pale by comparison to the damage that the wealthiest 2% do to the rest of us. Those are the people engineering this war, threatening our very democracy with their rigged machines, stealing our money by rigging the power plants ala Enron, forcing us to buy cars because they ripped out our trains in the 20's, controlling our media and dictating what we see, hear and even think.

These people need to pay taxes - a lot of taxes - and if they did to a sufficient degree, the merely wealthy could continue to aggravate us the way I complained about above, and we'd still be better off.

[sangh0]

33. another hit-and run thread

making a right-wing argument

[Sugarbleus]

36. Yep....

Getting pretty tired of these same old worn out repuke arguments...

[sangh0]

38. And DUers fall for it everytime.

,

[Sugarbleus]

41. Yes, I've done it myself....glad you put a "Flag" up this time

:7 :hi:

[ibegurpard]

44. Not necessarily a bad thing sometimes

A lot of good arguments that people might not have thought of were posted here.

[pelagius]

47. It's good practice.

We should all be able to handle "arguments" like this in our sleep.

[Bill66]

34. Those who benefit should pay!

By this I am a referring to those who engage in activities for which they do not pay, yet the taxpayers must support them.

Snow sports.....the x-country skiers, hikers, & snowshoer's who get in trouble and require publicly funded rescue, including helicopters, to get them out of trouble.

Boaters....get in trouble and need the Coast Guard to rescue them.

Mountaineers....trapped and need public help.

How many other activities with risks exist?

The cost of the publicly funded rescue operations should be spread across the activities as fees, either when buying equipment or entering a rec area.

Pay for benefit received!

[Blue_Tires]

35. eat the rich??

lol...i love that quote

[holiday]

40. If you are talking about me

then you are wrong. I'm surrounded by bushies and sometimes I come here to straighten my thoughts out on what I can say in retaliation to them to get them to understand things. Everytime I come on and do this people basically say I'm a troll. I've been here for awhile...look up my other posts. You will see that I'm nowhere near a troll or a republican. Never will be. I liked the person's sig here that said something to the effect.. born a democrat die a democrat. that is me that is how i feel.

I emailed this person today back and forth but got nowhere. She basically said I was saying democrat talking points... the media is liberally biased (wish I had Al Franken's book still so that I could show her a few things about that), etc. This is what it's like everytime I defend myself to them. I just don't know what I'm talking about, I've got it all wrong, the democrats have brainwashed me, you have to watch where you get your information, etc. I get so sick of it.

[Blue_Tires]

42. no, i wasn't directing that at you

the hubris of rich right-wingers has been in the news all week, and that one little phrase came to my mind

[AP]

46. Post your emails? It might be instructive.

[holiday]

52. okay

It all started with me emailing this (I am really against this if Bush does this)

I know you were wondering about taxes...

I hope to God Bush doesn't do this. He is proposing a new tax code that
would stop taxing money from investments and capital gains (what rich
people live off of) and to pay for it wants to get rid of state and
local tax deductions and get rid of tax deductions for for
employer-sponsored health insurance.







This is what she wrote back:

I will check other sources. I know they are looking at a bunch of
stuff. But, remember, a lot of these journalist who don't like Bush
want to stir up controversy and get people all fired up. You know the
proposal that Kerry was proposing would have definately caused companies
to stop providing insurance. That's one of the things lots of people
were against. I don't want to go to some government clinic. I think
too they are trying to find a healthcare solution. So what may happen
is we will get tax credits to pay for our insurance individually instead
of being tied to a company. It's a different concept and it used to be
more that way years ago. Keep an open mind. All I want is the end
result to be less governmental control. We all should want that.





This is what I wrote:

the republicans kept saying that about john kerry's health care plan
but it
wasn't a clinic or anything. it was just the same health care that the
Congress gets.. you would still continue to go to your own doctor etc.

I think what the far right want to do is not have your employers have
anything to do with healthcare at all.. and just too many people can't
afford that. jobs are worse, economy is worse, gas prices are up,
people
can't even afford to heat their homes and if they have to pay all
their
healthcare themselves as well people just can't make it.




And this is what she wrote:

So you want your taxes increased to pay for others. How about we all
get paid the same no matter what we do and we all live the same. That
should be more fair for everyone. What about those that don't work,
well surely we should include them because we know really everyone would
work if they could right?

I think you would be surprised how many people can't afford health
insurance and this and that, but they can afford to eat out, to buy
their kids high end clothes, and a lot of other stuff that people making
a lot more money don't buy because we can't afford it if they want
health insurance. You got to look at who can't afford what. I can't
afford to do all that stuff just as they can't afford some of the things
I spend my money on. There may even be people out there who have the
ability to have insurance and won't pay the co-pay. There's no easy
solution to any of this. I just know if we keep getting taxed more for
all these programs, there won't be a middle class. And I'm sure you
know, no matter what, there is always going to be someone on top and
bottom. I guess I feel strongly that most of the people who are on the
top have worked very hard and probably worked more hours a week than the
average person, taken risks, and have been self motivated. They should
feel the need to give back to the community but they don't owe people
who make bad choices or people who don't want to work that hard. I
don't want to work that hard, full time is enough for me and I don't
expect someone to pay for things for me.

I still think that there should be a way for all these social issues to
be provided without the government being involved.




And here is what I wrote:

But it sounds like they want our taxes to help the rich get richer. I
would
rather them go to the poor. Taxes are up... our sales tax is 7% now...
funding to schools has been cut so they keep asking for levies (which
make
the taxes go up) but our property value is down because the schools
can't get levies
to
pass. Gas up (which raises the prices of products because now they
have
increased fuel expenses), bankruptcies up..etc. People need a break,
we
can't keep going like we are. If people don't have insurance they still
get
medical care at the hospital and we have to pay for it. It would be
nicer
for them to just have affordable health care they pay themselves
anyway.





And here is what she wrote:

You are an adult now and you are
seeing it first hand. The rich are the ones that spend and we benefit.
They buy our products, they spend their money, invest in our businesses,
the stock market. They will always be rich. They will make their
money. The more you take in taxes, the higher they charge for the
products and the middle class pays for it. Think about it, you tax them
more, the money goes to the poor, products and services go up to cover
the increase in tax and is carried on to the consumer, who's the
consumer, the poor? NO it's us. Same with property tax. Think the
poor pay the same as we do in property tax? Think the rich pay less
than us, no, they always pay more. But, you have to come to a point
that you say, they pay more on everything and we want them to now pay
for the poor too? What if you were one of those, and you were taxed
about 60% Would you think it's fair?

You are complaining about something "republican" It's just a difference
in opinion. But here's some statistics, most groups that voted for the
democrats in big blocks (majority) was the extremely rich and the
extremely poor. Anyone making 30 thousand and up to the extremely rich
voted republican. So if that is all true then why is it the exact
people who are the should be against all that voting the opposite. It's
a difference in philosophy.





and here is what I wrote:

It's been said alot lately that people in the middle class voted
against
themselves. They benefit more by having a democrat president but vote
republican because of abortion and gun rights. Even though
realistically
abortion will never be outlawed nor will the ownership of hunting
guns.





and here is what she wrote:

You are just like a talking points person. I don't believe that. But,
that's just my opinion. There are two ways of looking at it and I don't
see it that way.

Do you remember Ronald Reagan? He was a republican and everyone
thought he was one of the best presidents ever. And I don't think it
was because of democrat or republican talking points. He is one that
said the democratic party left him. It's not all one way or the other.
We choose by what we think is most important. Not just party line.
Many democrats voted for Reagan. Just as a lot of republicans voted for
Clinton. It's what the individual represents these days not the party.
At least for me and I think a lot of other people too. It's whether you
think the person will actually do what they say they will. It's a big
chance because it's hard to know if they are being honest. If the next
democrat runs on issues that I agree with, I'd vote for them whether
they are republican or democrat. I lean more republican in ideology but
there's a lot of issues that make me more conservative that I wouldn't
be voting an election on.




Okay she says she is not a republican but she SO is... I told her if she ever votes for a democrat president I will clean her house for a week!


and so on and so on.....

[pelagius]

56. Nearly every sentence in her emails contain...

...an untruth, a half-truth, a logical fallacy, an unsubstantiated opinion, and/or rhetorical deception.

('d venture to guess that she doesn't have a full grasp on the issues herself and is repeating things she has heard elsewhere. I also surmise she is rather young and/or sheltered and doesn't have much practical life experience if she thinks, for example, all people who suffer misfortune have done so through "bad choices". Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I can't provide a line-by-line analysis today, but here's a few things that jumped out at me:

(a) Frequent appeals to unspecified authorities: "lots of people" and the ever-powerful "they". Ask her to name names or cite authorities. For example, "people" certainly do say Reagan was the greatest president; "people" also say God tells them what clothes to wear each day. Which people? How many of them?

(b) Non sequiturs ("it does not follow") -- if a Kerry enacted one of his described health care plans, she'd be forced to go to a "government clinic". Pure bullshit. Where did she find that in Kerry's plan? Ask her to explain, step-by-step, how Kerry's plan logically leads to her rotting in a public clinic queue. Does she even know what Kerry's plan was? Hint: there's a complicated issue called "reinsurance" at the heart of it.

(c) Straw men -- claiming that you would be "surprised how many people" make unwise choices about spending their money instead of purchasing health care (the unvirtuous) unlike "richer people" who have their priorities straight (the virtuous).

Couple of approaches here:

* Ask her to name three such people or provide a documented study showing such people are the norm -- they most certainly exist, since nearly anything or one we can conceive of does -- or if it's a straw man. This is also called anecdotal "evidence". It's a story, maybe true, maybe not. She tells one, you tell one, she tells another, you tell another, blah, blah, blah. It's essentially an emotional appeal with no factual basis. It proves nothing.

Speaking of facts, does she know what basic health care for a family of four costs? Hint: it's about $700/mo in my part of the country. Look on-line for true costs in your area. Most of us aren't going to raise that sum by skipping our venti lattes. That's more than my food budget for a family of four, by the way, and, after our mortgage the single largest payout we have each month. The choice is not between going to the movies or buying health insurance; it's more like the choice between making payments on a Mercedes sedan and getting insurance. When you see me in a bright red E-class driving my kids to a public health clinic, you can start criticizing all you want; until then, just shut up.

* Be mean and ask her if she thinks children should be denied medical care because of their parent's bad choices? Don't let her wiggle out of it: "So, you would let a five-year-old die because her mother bought designer jeans?" (This is rhetorical excess, of course, but sometimes it's fun to fight fire with fire.)

(d)Logical fallacies

I'm not certain I can even follow the logic about "the rich" are the ones who buy things -- doesn't everyone buy food, gas, clothing, cars, cable TV, Halo II, etc.? -- and taxing them results in them what -- not eating? not having a car? what? tell me, please. Some of the most prosperous times in this country were in the Eisenhower era when marginal tax rates were as high as 90% -- it didn't stop the rich from earning and spending.

"Most people who are on the top have worked hard" -- yes, if they didn't inherit their wealth (like most of the Forbes 400) they undoubtedly did -- but did they not benefit from our legal system, our roads, our public schools, and a whole host of other tax-funded government programs? It seems like they benefited _more_ than the average Joe or Josie. Pay your fair share.

Anyway, it just goes on and on. I really recommend you hit the books (or the web) and learn some basic rhetorical and logical techniques. Devote one afternoon to this and it will change your life. Your opponent reasons so poorly, she would last exactly two minutes at the average college debate tournament before being laughed out of the room.

Presumptuous personal note: What's the condescending "you are an adult now" crap? You're not some kid to be talked down to. At least not by this person. Man up, cowboy -- you deserve to be treated like the intelligent adult you are.

Even more presumptuous: If you're trying to boink this chick, you can do so much better.

[pelagius]

51. Your correspondent is intellectually dishonest.

Unlike yourself, she is not looking for an open exchange of ideas. The reason you're always "wrong" is that she is a manipulative little shit enmeshed in her own biases and determined to win at all costs with no regard for any form of truth. Such people can't usually be out-talked -- they must be out-organized, out-shouted, out-spent, and, ultimately out-voted. I'd say walk away and spend time with people who will support you rather than cut you down.

But if you want to fight back for the fun of it, here's a few ideas.

She's accusing you of being "brainwashed" with Democratic "talking points"!? Ridiculous, she's the one spewing talking points. Turn the tables on her and say, yes, indeed you do have to watch where you get your information.

For example, one of the hoariest old chestnuts in the right-wing toolkit of talking points is "the media has a liberal bias." It's not an argument, it's an unprovable assertion your correspondent picked up from Rush or Hannity or whomever.

The truth is the media has a bias toward money-making and will provide whatever content makes that money. They will choose what they report and how they report it in the manner that best benefits them -- not the "liberals" or the "conservatives" or any other faction. Tell your friend you're a little disappointed she's living in such a fantasy world and it's time for her to learn something about cold, hard cash.

("Conservatives" hate it when you call them mushy-minded. Just as liberals pride themselves on being "compassionate", conservatives pride themselves on being "realists".)

Or better yet, call her on her bullshit and ask for statistical documentation on media bias. Not anecdotes, not personal narrative (like Bernard Goldberg's "insider" accounts), just clearly-presented factual data.

She can't produce it. If she claims to have done so, check the source of her material. Odds are it's an partisan organization that produced it.

(Both liberal and conservative organizations produce figures that "prove" the media is biased against them. This material is largely BS.)

People in this thread have provided excellent answers to the "rich people earned it, why shouldn't the keep it" talking point. Take a few of them and use them! That's what they're here for!

Keep fighting the good fight, but don't get too worn-out from talking with these type of dishonest people. For every hour you spend with them, you need to spend TWO with those who will teach and support you.
I don't care how red your red state is, there are good, strong people there who love our country and have a dream for the society it can be if we hold true to the best in us. Find them!

On edit: You posted your email exchange after I posted this. I will grant that your correspondent may be sincere in some of her misunderstandings. She isn't, however, right. You are.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Another way in which she's full of it:

Reagan enjoyed only an average level of popularity, although the "liberal media" didn't admit this until he was out of office. During his two terms, they consistently referred to him as "the most popular president since World War II."

When the press finally admitted that RR wasn't all that popular, I felt vindicated, because I'd spent 8 years wondering who the hell liked him so much.

[LOSTintheSOUTH]

64. The media is waaaaay more neutral than anyone gives them credit for.

Seems to me that the news media always gives two or more opinions any time an opinion of any kind is warranted. Every time there is anything debate-worthy, they have communicate via satellite with mr. red and mr. blue, so that mr. blue can give facts and legitimate arguments for mr. red to swiftly dodge and spew a bunchacrap that appeared in a memo on his PDA from, either directly or indirectly, mr. Karl Rove himself. He snaps his fingers in the morning and by nightfall his little repugnican servants have successfully delivered his message to millions of homes across America. (This process constitutes the phenomenon known as the RMM, or Republican Message Machine)
The reason that Democrats have no such Machine, is, IMHO, that its because the liberal base is far more knowledgeable than its conservative counterpart, and that the propaganda and disinformation routinely delivered by conservative spokespersons would not be tolerated by our considerably more informed base. Liberals champion virtues like honesty and a firm belief in the democratic process, much the same way that conservatives champion their moral values.

[MsTryska]

37. Actually it's very Christian.

granted it's unfair to exert christianity on non-believer's wallets, but i thought taking car eof the poor was a tenet of judaism and islam too.

[Nimrod]

39. Here's how I debunk ALL of that

The CEO of Blue Shield has included in his compensation package...
...
Wait for it...
...
The cost of a DOG SITTER for when he goes on a business trip and decides to take his wife with him.

I think I'll say that again.

A DOG SITTER paid for by Blue Cross/Blue Shield as part of his standard compensation package.

His wife's first-class ticket to go on his business trips with him is also part of his compensation by the way.

Oh, those poor little rich people, can't even afford their own dog sitters. My heart is bleeding.

[holiday]

43. I basically said stuff like that to her

that don't worry about the rich. they pay low taxes due to loopholes and can live off just the interest from their investments. And she started basically saying I hate rich people... ugh!

[pelagius]

49. The ironic thing about most rich people...

...is that they often pay less out of pocket for their lifestyle than middle-class people. They get their companies or other entities to pick up the tab. They're addicted to OPM.*

*Other people's money

[Astrochimp]

45. IMHO, All should pay .........

the same rate with NO deductions. (say 10%, make a buck, pay the gov .10)


And the Gov should use the previous years revenue number for the current years budget. (last year we took in $1000, so this year we have $1000 to spend, any extra pays debt)


Budgets should be based on % of total, not a dollar amount.(military is X% heath care X%- if you want to raise one, you have to lower others to keep total at 100% or less)


But I live in a fantasy land.




David

[DireStrike]

48. They don't deserve to be rich.

That's all there is to it.

There are poor people that deserve to be poor.
There are poor people that don't deserve to be poor.
There are rich people that don't deserve to be rich.
There are no rich people that deserve to be rich.

IMO of course.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. No necessary correlation between taxes and prices

1. All necessary business expenses (materials, buildings, equipment, supplies, employee and executive wages and benefits, leasing of buildings and vehicles, etc.) are paid for with pre-tax income.

Corporate income tax is levied on a corporation AFTER all these expenses have been paid.

If a business is owned by a sole proprietor, than everything that's left over after business expenses are met becomes personal income of the proprietor and is taxed at personal income tax rates.

Rightwing blowhards get away with spreading a lot of bullshit about this topic because the general public doesn't know this.

2. A hell of a lot of rich people are beneficiaries of inherited wealth and never did a lick of work for their trust funds and stock dividends.

3. If working "more hours a week than the average person" entitles a person to low taxes, does that include the person who has to work two minimum wage jobs (80 hours a week) to pay rent and buy groceries?

[proud_Kucitizen]

63. I just wanted to add

that I haven't seen any decrease in prices since Bush gave the windfall tax cuts to the wealthy. In fact, quite the opposite is true prices have gone up substantially in the past couple of years.

[LOSTintheSOUTH]

66. Nope, everything's going down the toilet except for prices.

Especially oil prices. Hmm... I wonder why?

[ThorsHammer]

69. What can we do

I'd like to start with the estate taxes for one. I'm pretty sure we could get a huge majority to support higher taxes here. A certain amount of money could be exempt, with the rest subject to taxes. I'd much rather have this money used for basic healthcare, education, and a safety net than being handed down to people like the Hiltons and Rockefellers. I don't see how any politician could come out blatantly in favor of protecting the filthy rich at the expense of the rest of us. Last time they pulled some 'family farm' crap, despite no recorded cases of any farms being lost to high estate taxes. I'd hope that we could get the actual facts out and convince the majority of people that it is in their best interests. Repealing the tax cuts for the highest bracket would be a good second step, and the old rates didn't seem to hurt the economy under Clinton.

W/R/T Bush's money, his grandfather Prescot Bush was extremely wealthy and a partner in some New York financial company. George HW made a pretty good amount in the oil business, and also worked for Carlyle. George W benefitted disproportionately all throughout his life through family connections - they financed Arbusto, the Harken buyout, the purchase of the Rangers, and probably didn't hurt with Andover/Yale/Harvard. I think it's pretty safe to say he had much more help from connections than Kerry.