The Evil Rich conservatives

[ThatRobGuy]

I hear a lot of people on this forum and as a whole, blame financial/economic issues on wealthy, greedy republicans who cling on to their money and don't want to share it with everyone else. They often also point the finger at conservatives when discussing the wealth gap issues in this nation.

Is this really the case?

When you look at the Forbes list of 100 richest people, almost 70% is democrats.

Bill Gates
Larry Ellison
The Waltons (Wal-Mart family)
Warren Buffett
etc...

(Warren Buffett, on a side note, is the same guy who disowned his granddaughter because she criticized his tactics for making his forture in a documentary)

Every stat I can find comparing the republicans to the democrats in terms of charitable donations (in total amount, percentage, and per capa) always leans in the republican's favor, even though democrats outnumber republicans.

When we hear/read the rhetoric on TV/newspaper about conservatives being grumpy old money-grubbing swindlers who just want to hoard the money for themselves and keep everyone else down, do liberals/democrats actually believe it blindly without first checking the stats?

Do they really believe it? or is it just a tactic to try to discredit the other side so when a debate happens on another issue, the other side already has the bad rep of not caring about other people and being greedy?

 

[The Paul]

I hear a lot of people on this forum and as a whole, blame financial/economic issues on wealthy, greedy republicans who cling on to their money and don't want to share it with everyone else. They often also point the finger at conservatives when discussing the wealth gap issues in this nation.

Is this really the case?

When you look at the Forbes list of 100 richest people, almost 70% is democrats.

Bill Gates
Larry Ellison
The Waltons (Wal-Mart family)
Warren Buffett
etc...

(Warren Buffett, on a side note, is the same guy who disowned his granddaughter because she criticized his tactics for making his forture in a documentary)

Every stat I can find comparing the republicans to the democrats in terms of charitable donations (in total amount, percentage, and per capa) always leans in the republican's favor, even though democrats outnumber republicans.

When we hear/read the rhetoric on TV/newspaper about conservatives being grumpy old money-grubbing swindlers who just want to hoard the money for themselves and keep everyone else down, do liberals/democrats actually believe it blindly without first checking the stats?

Do they really believe it? or is it just a tactic to try to discredit the other side so when a debate happens on another issue, the other side already has the bad rep of not caring about other people and being greedy?

The real question is who is it that starts crying communist when we talk about raising the taxes on super-rich people?

So far as I'm aware, it isn't any of the people you named.

A widening rich/poor gap is a fact. We've got a population that is able to produce more wealth but seems to have less of it.

Now I'm not an economist, but the people who link those things with an unstable economy seem a shade or two less crazy than the folks who shout them down.

Now maybe I've got the wrong end of it, but whether or not incredibly wealthy people with left-wing politics exist has nothing to do with it.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

The heads of massive corporations support the status quo of corporatism?

Does that really surprise anyone?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The real question is who is it that starts crying communist when we talk about raising the taxes on super-rich people?

So far as I'm aware, it isn't any of the people you named.

A widening rich/poor gap is a fact. We've got a population that is able to produce more wealth but seems to have less of it.

Now I'm not an economist, but the people who link those things with an unstable economy seem a shade or two less crazy than the folks who shout them down.

Now maybe I've got the wrong end of it, but whether or not incredibly wealthy people with left-wing politics exist has nothing to do with it.

Well, to be fair, they cry "socialism", not "communism" ...and supporting heavy government regulations on business and a tax increase with the intention of turning around and handing that money to someone else is a socialistic principle...so they're not making a false boogeyman out of it, they're right...it's just a matter of whether or not you agree with them.

The wage gap is a problem, however just because the republican side complains about socialism, that doesn't negate the fact that wealthy democrats contribute to the wage gap problem more than wealthy republicans.

In an article done about the Forbes top 100 list:

An analysis of the Top 100 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you eliminate the duplication caused by people from the same family being included in that Top 20 list (Wal-Mart & Koch) that ratio widens even further to: 25% Republican / 75% Democrat

In the Top 20 group, Democrats have a combined net worth of $263.1 billion dollars while the Republicans have a combined net worth of only $143.9 billion dollars – almost half that of Democrats.

I would have to think that everyone on this top 100 would have to represent and perpetuate the evil that is the wage gap, correct? Everyone on that list is guilty of widening the wage gap through making themselves filthy rich off of the work of others, would you agree?

If the wage gap is the real evil that the liberals are out to change, then from the numbers above, it certainly can't be a republican vs. democrat thing, can it?

When liberals target rich republicans as the offenders in the wage gap problem simply on the grounds that they oppose socialism, it's almost as if they're giving the equally (and in some cases more) offending democrats a free pass on this one just because they happen to agree with them on other societal debates.

"The wage gap is evil, look at that evil man taking advantage of the laborers and keeping the money for himself!"..."Wait a minute, this other guy is doing that too, why aren't you yelling at him?"..."He agrees with me on gay marriage and abortion so he's alright"

...not saying that this is true in every case, but to those who are classified in my group (conservative non-religious, but not belonging to either political party), that's how it sometimes comes across.

 

[SnowCal]

Every stat I can find comparing the republicans to the democrats in terms of charitable donations (in total amount, percentage, and per capa) always leans in the republican's favor, even though democrats outnumber republicans.

Just a question for you. If I live in a blue state like California and pay a significantly larger amount of taxes to support social services than people in red states like Texas do, do I have the same moral imperative to tithe as much of my after-tax income towards charities as somebody in Texas does?

It seems pretty logical to me that Democrats tend to make fewer charitable donations than Republicans do; they make sure that people are taken care of through their taxes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Just a question for you. If I live in a blue state like California and pay a significantly larger amount of taxes to support social services than people in red states like Texas do, do I have the same moral imperative to tithe as much of my after-tax income towards charities as somebody in Texas does?

It seems pretty logical to me that Democrats tend to make fewer charitable donations than Republicans do; they make sure that people are taken care of through their taxes.

California has one of the most skewed cost of living to income ratios in the nation...

The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430.[52] With half of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also lower middle class worker to afford decent housing,[citation needed] and no possibility of home ownership. In the Monterey area, where the low-pay industry of agriculture is the largest sector in the economy and the majority of the population lacks a college education the median home price was determined to be $723,790, requiring an upper middle class income which only roughly 20% of all households in the county boast.

It also has the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the nation.

Clearly raising taxes alone doesn't get the job done in terms of fixing economical imbalance. California is no better off than states with lower taxes in terms of poverty rates. They're at 13.2% with the rank of 3rd highest tax rates in the nation. Compare them to a state like Michigan that has very low tax rates. Their stats on poverty and unemployment are almost identical.


Why is there not an outcry to redistribute the wealth of all of the liberal multi-million dollar actors in California? They certainly have to have almost as much money as the conservative CEO's that people traditionally like to target when discussing these matters.

 

[Verv]

Minerchivi is right:

It is merely a tactic to mess with people's perceptions.

But the entire Republican Vs. Democrat idea is a bit of a sham when it comes to politics in general.

 

[SnowCal]

California has one of the most skewed cost of living to income ratios in the nation...

Is that particularly surprising? I pay a premium to live in a state that has towering mountains, a beautiful coast, and the culture that is California. Doesn't matter that I'm poor and could probably live a bit more affordably in some place like Kansas where the biggest hill in sight is a pitcher's mound. I realize that I have to deal with a high cost of living to enjoy a place like this. But that's worth it for me and a lot of other people. That should be basic economics, no?

Clearly raising taxes alone doesn't get the job done in terms of fixing economical imbalance.

You really haven't proven this point. Conversely it could be said that the United States currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the first world while countries with socialized healthcare, high taxes, and all that jazz are doing pretty dang well right now, all things considered.

California is no better off than states with lower taxes in terms of poverty rates. They're at 13.2% with the rank of 3rd highest tax rates in the nation. Compare them to a state like Michigan that has very low tax rates. Their stats on poverty and unemployment are almost identical.

Poverty statistics don't account for things like government assistance to the poor and needy. If the government provides free housing to people with no income (not even California does this, but it's a hypothetical) they still are considered to have no income whatsoever. Nor do poverty statistics include in-kind contributions towards the poor from churches and their ilk.

Here's my way of resolving that problem though. When people become truly poor and incapable of providing a healthy life for themselves do they wander to big, liberal cities where the local populace is 'uncharitable' but provide a great deal of services to get people on their feet? Or do the wander off to little towns in BFE where the local conservatives are very 'charitable'? The revealed preference will probably tell you a lot about who is kinder to their unfortunate neighbor.

PS: Most of your 'rebuttal' didn't really come close to answering my point.

 

[homeofmew]

it is not the wealthy that is causing the nightmare, but they are a part of it.

Whats Causing this nightmare in a nutshell.

- Companies Embellishing Money/ Misapproprating it/
That or doing things that are unethical.

- Companies that pay their CEOS Enormous amount of money and not give more to their employees.

- The government Bailing those Companies out. To try to save the company and they go embezzle more or even shut down.

- Poor Lower Class people trying to buy a house but unable to pay for iy

- Greedy Banks who gave the loan but now are under because too many people defaulted on their loan.

There isn't anything wrong with being rich, as in earning your money but a CEO being paid 1M USD and their Empl;employees getting paid 8 USD? The pay should be proportionate to the company/ and the position all around. But of course this doesn't happen

- People Stuck at the Entry Job can also be an issue too.
40 yr olds being cashiers at target.

 

[Umaro]

The heads of massive corporations support the status quo of corporatism?

Does that really surprise anyone?

I'm going to second this one ^^.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, to be fair, they cry "socialism", not "communism" ...and supporting heavy government regulations on business and a tax increase with the intention of turning around and handing that money to someone else is a socialistic principle...

You're talking about bailing out wall street and banks when they make bad investments, right? Or giving tons of government money in no-bid contracts to defense companies?

There's lots of "socialism" to and from both sides of our political spectrum.

If the wage gap is the real evil that the liberals are out to change, then from the numbers above, it certainly can't be a republican vs. democrat thing, can it?

As soon as republican politicians start talking about raising taxes on the wealthy, equalizing taxes between income and investment gains, and increasing taxes on corporations regardless of how much they give in campaign contributions, I'll believe it's a bipartisan attempt at a solution.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're talking about bailing out wall street and banks when they make bad investments, right? Or giving tons of government money in no-bid contracts to defense companies?

There's lots of "socialism" to and from both sides of our political spectrum.

As soon as republican politicians start talking about raising taxes on the wealthy, equalizing taxes between income and investment gains, and increasing taxes on corporations regardless of how much they give in campaign contributions, I'll believe it's a bipartisan attempt at a solution.

I see it on both sides of the fence. That's why I don't think it's fair to single out the rich on one side and pay no attention to the ones on the other side doing the exact same thing.

I agree that we should equalize taxes between income and investment gains. However, taxing the rich more everytime the nation needs money for something is a bad plan and that's why the republicans don't want to do it.

Historically, it's never solved anything...If you look at the era of the great depression (1929-1942) the tax rate was through the roof on the top 1% and yet it still didn't solve anything. If you look at the 10 years leading up to the big recession in the early 80's, the tax rate in those years leading up was around 70% for the ultra rich.

So why are we demonizing them for not wanting to take an approach that's never worked in the past?

 

[Paradoxum]

Its the Republicans who always cry about raising taxes. That's why I blame them. if Democrats did the same then they would be blameworthy too.

 

[The Paul]

The wage gap is a problem, however just because the republican side complains about socialism, that doesn't negate the fact that wealthy democrats contribute to the wage gap problem more than wealthy republicans.

Yes it does.

The situation is the "fault" of the political schemes and goals that created it, regardless of the personal situations of people involved in the politics.

If the wage gap is the real evil that the liberals are out to change, then from the numbers above, it certainly can't be a republican vs. democrat thing, can it?

Yes it can. It's not very difficult to understand. It's perfectly possible for an incredibly rich person to look at things like tax burdens, the right to work, minimum wages, etc, decide they are unfair to people less wealthy than themself, and try to change the situation.

The fact they happened to have benefited from the state of the system they're trying to change simply isn't relevant to the question of who's fault the system is.

If you want to make the argument this is as much or more the fault of liberals than of republicans, you need to find examples of liberals working to perpetuate the situation. Or of republics working to end it.

Simply pointing at rich people with left-leaning politics is a red herring.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Its the Republicans who always cry about raising taxes. That's why I blame them. if Democrats did the same then they would be blameworthy too.

As I mentioned in a prior post, their reasoning for opposing it isn't because they want to sit in a dark room puffing cigars and laughing at poor people. They oppose it because it's never worked in the past for the US, and they want to see a solid economic plan to back up a tax increase so that it's not done in vain. I don't think it's unfair to question a tax increase plan that's been tried before and failed...

It's kind of like the old Einstein quote: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Reagan and Bush’s tax increases are repeatedly cited as the hallmarks of bipartisanship, reason, and common sense. The deficits of the time paled in comparison to our current trillion-dollar-figures (our budget didn’t hit 1T until 1987), but they were considered big back then, and Reagan himself – followed by his VP and anointed heir – swallowed hard and accepted some tax increases in order to reduce the deficit. That’s the story everyone sees, reads, and hears.
Here’s the part they missed: within three years of each tax hike, the deficit rose to record levels. Funny how that epilogue gets cut from the story.
The 1993 tax hike, meanwhile extended the post-recession “slowth” (think what we’re experiencing now) for another three years. Only by 1996 did the economy recover to a pre-recession state. The next year, Clinton and the Republican Congress agreed to the second of four major tax cuts in thirty years (1981, 2001, and 2003 being the other three) and the only one to be accompanied by spending cuts. The next four years saw the only federal budget surpluses in four decades.

Looking at your income and saying "I don't want to pay 70% tax on this!" isn't a republican thing, it's a rich people thing.

The republican perpective on opposing the tax increase is based off of historical data.

 

[fenix144]

I thought you were supposed to tax the crap out of them when all is right so you don't drown in bad times??? Of course taxing them after everything blew is just a bad idea.

my 0.02$.

 

[The Paul]

The republican perpective on opposing the tax increase is based off of historical data.

It's not as cut and dried as all that.

The more recent historical data would seem to suggest that no matter what sorts of tax breaks you give very wealthy people, it doesn't motivate them to do anything particularly beneficial with the spare cash. Just because a business owner is paying fewer taxes doesn't mean he's going to hire more employees or raise the wages of the ones he has.

Republicans like to characterize things as liberals being too soft-hearted to face reality and do what needs to be done, while they are wise and experienced enough to face the reality of situations.

I don't buy it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes it does.
The situation is the "fault" of the political schemes and goals that created it, regardless of the personal situations of people involved in the politics.

Well, based on the historical data I provided, it was the goals of the current democrat side (IE: Increasing taxes) that caused the high unemployment and recession/depression. So going by your logic, it is fair to point the finger at them since the blame goes to the folks whose political goals caused the issues.

Yes it can. It's not very difficult to understand. It's perfectly possible for an incredibly rich person to look at things like tax burdens, the right to work, minimum wages, etc, decide they are unfair to people less wealthy than themself, and try to change the situation.

While this is not impossible, I don't recall ever seeing an ultra rich person voluntarily giving up 70% of their wealth for redistribution...When Bill Gates cuts a $30billion check to the government on his own accord for the financial equality efforts, then I'll change my tune...

The fact they happened to have benefited from the state of the system they're trying to change simply isn't relevant to the question of who's fault the system is.

That's called being a front runner...intentially running your competition out of the business and over-working and underpaying your staff to get filthy rich...then once you're already rich, have a miraculous change of heart (now that your fortune is safe) and condemning those actions seems a bit fishy to me.

If you want to make the argument this is as much or more the fault of liberals than of republicans, you need to find examples of liberals working to perpetuate the situation. Or of republics working to end it.

If you review my previous posts:
High taxes and government spending ended up in economic turmoil (what the democrats want)

Tax cuts in 97 ended in the only budget surplus we've seen in 40 years and a 28-year low for the unemployment rate (what republicans want)

Simply pointing at rich people with left-leaning politics is a red herring.

How so? The historical statistics lean in favor of the right wing in terms of what has worked in the past for economic stability. (Which I've provided examples for)

So, pointing the finger at people who are supporting policies that are proven to fail, but are already rich enough that they won't end up on the streets when it does fail, doesn't seem unreasonable.

That's like someone with $20,000,000 saying that everyone should have to bet $1,000,000 in a slot machine. When you lose, 95% of the people are completely ruined, but the guy with the "great idea" still has $19,000,000 in the bank.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I thought you were supposed to tax the crap out of them when all is right so you don't drown in bad times??? Of course taxing them after everything blew is just a bad idea.

my 0.02$.

I understand what you're saying...but if you look at my earlier post, the recession we had in the early 80's was preceeded by 10 years of some of the highest tax rates in our nation's history during decent economic times.

So far, the only formula that's ever worked on a consistent basis for a healthy economy (at least in our nation) is

Low Taxes + Low Government Spending

 

[fenix144]

Can I get your sources?