Come ON defenders of the rich, you still haven't..............

[socialist_n_TN]

answered my question from last night. I know you're here because we've argued before. Why does everybody EXCEPT the rich have to sacrifice in the name of austerity?

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Background, please.

Thanks.

[socialist_n_TN]

2. No real background. It's just a simple question...........

that I've been asking for a while. Why is everybody asked to "sacrifice" in the name of "austerity" EXCEPT the one's who have the most? I'm REALLY curious as to what the justification for this is and nobody will answer the question.

I get some sarcastic answers from people who think like I do which boil down to "The Divine Right of the Wealthy", but no answer from people who actually DO believe that the elites don't have to sacrifice in the name of austerity. Why shouldn't they have to sacrifice a portion of their gains to bring down the deficit?

[PBS Poll-435]

3. I don't have an answer for you. Taxes must be raised (With a Sunset Provision) and we can not

And should not cut social services.

I want 1st Graders to have a warm meal in the morning and seniors to have a warm lunch or dinner in the evening.

[Angry Dragon]

13. No sunset provisions

for the wealthy

[DenverDad]

4. . . .

"The rich aren't like us. . .they're BETTER."-Marge Simpson

[steve2470]

5. With all due respect, you'd get a more thorough answer at another site

I don't think many here defend the rich. I don't.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. In general you're right about this site, BUT...........

I have had arguments with several folks about stuff like this ON this site. But even folks like you and me who AREN'T apologists for the rich might have HEARD some sort of justification for this. However, I haven't. Hence my question.

Edited to correct typo.

[Cid_B]

6. Is this your response to the...

steal all the rich folks property thread?

[socialist_n_TN]

7. Sorry I missed that one (I think), but yes..............

I am a radical socialist and I don't think that the elites have paid their fair share of taxes for at LEAST 30 years. If you want to call that "steal all the rich folks property" then that's OK by me. When wealth inequalities become as extreme as they are now, historically something happens to make it more equal. The easiest and most peaceful way to make it more equal is taxation. Or things happen like the French Revolution. So I'll ask you directly.

Why aren't the rich elites in this country asked to sacrifice in the name of austerity? The old folks will be asked to co pay for Medicare, the almost retired will be asked to delay retirement, they young will eventually be asked to forego any government administered retirement all together, but the rich aren't even asked to pay 4% more in their TOP tax rate as a sacrifice in the name of austerity. Why is that?

[LongTomH]

9. The top rate needs to go back to Pre-Reagan Levels: 70%

[socialist_n_TN]

10. Agreed.................

of course! :) Have you heard any justifications for why the elites are exempt from sacrifice? This question has REALLY been driving me crazy for a while now. I can't see ANY justification for it, but I'm a socialist. What am I missing?

[BrotherLove]

16. Disagree, we are at War so the wartime 1941 levels of 91% which made us a superpower nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

12. Hardly anyone here defends the rich and that's

why you haven't gotten any answers. I think you need to ask your question on a conservative message board.

[stevenleser]

14. +10000

Asking anyone here to defend conservative policy and beliefs you will get crickets.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. OK, although there are several posters on here...........

that seem to take the side of the wealthy whenever a thread attacking their greed comes up. So I don't think that's a totally sure thing. But you would think that even lefties would have heard SOMETHING about SOME sort of justification for this from SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE. I've never heard ANY justification or ANY answer to this simple question, even second hand. Has ANYBODY?

[BzaDem]

17. Oh, I've heard libertarian nonsense second-hand.

That you can't really raise taxes on the wealthy, since they'll just shift income and avoid or not work as hard, etc etc etc. They think you can set rates to be whatever you want, but the revenue brought in will still be the same percent of GDP. (Even though Europe seems to be collecting more taxes from the rich just fine.)

Other libertarians have a different conception of morality than most of us here. Ayn Randers think that a completely free market is the only moral allocation of resources, and that the current progressive taxation scheme already makes the rich "immorally" "sacrifice" more than they should. Some are even against a flat percentage tax, since it makes the rich pay more (in dollars) than the poor for the "same" services.

If you look hard enough, you can find a million justifications for it. The problem (for them) is that they are bogus, or stem from (in my opinion) a flawed notion of morality. Ultimately, they will never fully get their way, since they will fortunately never be able to convince the majority that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect their wealth.

[socialist_n_TN]

18. So, I guess the only real justification they can ..........

come up with is "The Divine Right of Wealth" or "Poor Little Rich People Being Picked On".

[bluestate10]

41. I recently saw an interview where the interviewer talked to a VERY rich person.

The rich person's point of view was that what he was doing was the most important concern to him, the money that came with it had relevance only as it confirmed that he was managing his passion well. I have difficulty seeing how such a person would care about a 2% per $100,000 earned increase in his marginal tax rate.

[socialist_n_TN]

46. Well yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at in one post...............

in this thread. If I had "VERY wealthy" type of money, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about how it was taxed. To me that kind of money means that I could spend what I wanted ANYWAY. IOW, the amount of taxes wouldn't affect my purchasing one iota. But then I'm not really that money centered. To me it's about what you DO with your money, not how much you have.

[bluestate10]

49. As I got more money, I realized that I was not money centered.

It is easier to feel that way when one has more money. My worldview on money is the main reason why I can't understand the position of rich and super rich people concerning fair taxation and giving.

[dawg]

19. Well, actually I agree with *you* but here goes ...

It would be unwise to raise taxes on anyone during an economic downturn. Doing so would decrease aggregate demand even further, adding to unemployment and contracting the economy even worse. The wealthy employ others in order to maintain their lifestyles. Raising their taxes would decrease their ability to spend and would result in lower employment. Even servant jobs, like maids and drivers, are jobs. It would be foolish, at time of 10% unumployment, to pursue any policy that could reduce private sector employment even further.

That's the best argument I can come up with. As I said before, I don't agree with it, but I am willing to play along.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. But that's just the old "trickle down" theory...........

which has been proven not to work. BTW, thanks for giving me some of the feedback you've received. Do people REALLY believe that folks who have enough money to consider themselves "rich" have any problem spending it on whatever they want to spend it on?

BTW, have you heard anything on why the rich SHOULDN'T sacrifice for austerity's sake like the rest of us are going to be expected to do?

[dawg]

33. Actually, what I said was basically Keynesian ...

the supply-siders say that tax cuts on the rich stimulate the economy so much that they pay for themselves. That has clearly been disproven.

Tax cuts for the rich, do, however have a stimulative effect. Everyone calls me a conservative when I say this. But it is true.

Tax cuts for the poor have a much *greater* stimulative effect than tax cuts for the rich. The poor (and working class) spend much more of their tax cut money, recycling it into the economy at a much faster rate.

Government spending programs can be the most stimulative fiscal policy of all. In addition to getting a dollar for dollar benefit by jobs created, we can also get public goods - such as roads, bridges, educated kids, etc. - almost as a bonus.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. Now the last paragraph sounds like what I've heard..............

described as Keynesian. The first sounds like "trickle down" to me. :)

Should this be a question asked ESPECIALLY in the debate about the SS and Medicare system? From what I've seen, the current recipients will be asked to sacrifice by shouldering a co-pay for some Medicare services. Folks towards the end of their working life will be asked to sacrifice by delaying retirement. And younger folks will be asked to sacrifice by giving up government administrated retirement all together. What do the wealthy sacrifice? It seems to me that they will be the one who (once again) benefit the MOST from these "austerity" measures that the rest of us are required to do.

[dawg]

42. The economics works out like this ...

Let's say we are trying to frame up a house. We could use a nail gun. We could use a plain old hammer and nails. Or we could use a hand drill and wooden pegs like they did in ancient times.

Technically, all three methods will get the job done.

The house is our economy. The nail gun is direct government spending on needed items. The hammer and nails is tax cuts for the poor and working class. The wooden pegs are tax cuts for the rich.

All methods work to some degree, but it would be insane to choose the pegs over the nail gun. Like all good lies, there is a kernal of truth to what the Republicans say about taxes. We need to understand that in order to defend against their misleading rhetoric.

And the real answer is that the masters they serve are wealthy and selfish. Anything that elevates them personally they advocate - even if it is wrong for the country as a whole.

[JVS]

45. It's not Keynesian and it's not correct either.

Taxation doesn't cut AD if the money collected is spent.

[dawg]

48. You are correct *if* the collected monies are spent.

I'm referring to deficit-funded tax cuts as a form of stimulus. They do work (increase aggregate demand), with varying degrees of effectiveness. (And are Keynesian.)

I think that you and I are in 100% agreement and that you will realize this if you thoroughly read my other posts on this thread. :hug:

[JVS]

51. It's still better not to give the cuts and merely borrow and spend the money.

It has to do with Marginal Propensity to Consume. Taxpayers are too concerned with paying debts and investing for their MPC to be as high as the government's. Tax cuts are window dressing to get things done in DC, they are not effective policy tools, and the failure to make the distinction is hindering the recovery.

[dawg]

54. As I supsected, we are in 100% agreement.

Political considerations are the only reasons to resort to tax cuts rather than direct spending to offset the employment and GDP slump. In addition to the valid argument you make about MPC, we conincidentally just happen to have an ongoing infrastructure crisis in this country. The policy choices are "no-brainers", but our political system has been hijacked by a wealthy (and short-sighted) elite.

In the long-run, the policies they advocate have bad results, even for them. But, I suppose, in the long-run we are all dead, and they don't give a damn about posterity either.

[whistler162]

20. HUH? Are you still drunk?

[socialist_n_TN]

24. Nope. Are you? Now...............

what about the question. Why is it that people who have the MOST in society are not expected to sacrifice ANY of it in the name of austerity? Why is it only the masses that are expected to give things up to assist the bankers with their deficit hysteria?

[cowcommander]

21. Simple, politics

Like it or not, but you need the support of the rich to get anything done in American politics. Obama outfunded McCain in the last election. You just simply CANNOT win elections here in America without money.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. OK. I agree, but is that the reason they'll give..............

if asked this question? That's what I'm mostly asking about. The justifications for not asking the wealthy to sacrifice in the name of austerity.

[cowcommander]

34. I've argued with the rich in the past about this

They always love to talk about how the rich are the ones that provide jobs for the rest of us underlings, and that they can't do it if they're taxed. You know, trickle-down Raygun bullshit and all that.

[seabeyond]

22. what do you consider rich? i have had argument with people that if you own a home, that makes you

rich? so maybe i need your definition of rich.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Not really. I'm asking about the justifications.............

for not asking the wealthy to sacrifice in the name of austerity and debt reduction. IF this question gets asked and answered, THEN we can have the debate about WHAT constitutes wealth. But until they're actually INCLUDED in the conversation about sacrifice, that's a question that can be deferred, IMO.

Do you think that the wealthy should ALSO be asked to sacrifice in the name of austerity?

[seabeyond]

27. nope.... if you cant answer that question, tells me i dont want to participate. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

28. OK...........

But that appears to be a distraction tactic to take away from the question asked.

I'll answer your question if you want to put it in another thread. I IS another subject after all.

Edited to add a thought.

[hfojvt]

37. how is it another subject? You put the word 'rich' right in your title.

We don't all mean the same thing by that word. I think people in the top 20% should be considered rich, and even people in the top 40% are UPPER middle class. Some here do not want people making $110,000 a year to sacrifice either. Because those middle class workers are just barely scraping by, doncha know.

[socialist_n_TN]

50. As I said in another post, I don't remember any.........

problems with pre Reagan tax brackets, much less Clinton era brackets. But then I don't care about money that much AS LONG AS I HAVE ENOUGH FOR MY BASIC NEEDS AND A FEW PERSONAL LUXURIES.

Since you've been so nice about things, I'll try to answer the "rich" question too. I would probably base it on "living wages" in various areas and put it as a multiple of that. How big of a multiple would probably depend on what we need to take care of everyone's basic needs in each area. Hey, I am a socialist after all. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. :) But if every other segment of society is going to be asked to sacrifice, I want the wealthy to be asked to sacrifice too. And nobody even asks the QUESTION, much less tries to get an answer.

[hfojvt]

53. funny, because I was reading through my journal

and saw this

"Republicans, of course, insist that the rich should never ever have to sacrifice anything, so they fought to keep taxes from going up on rich people. Instead of fighting them, Obama worked out a deal that bore a strange resemblance to an unconditional surrender. Then he started promoting his 'deal'."


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138


note the discussion that followed about the estate tax.

[socialist_n_TN]

55. Yep. That is interesting. At least there are SOME...............

who notice this disconnect in discussions about sacrifice and austerity. I just wish more people WOULD notice and BRING IT UP IN THE CONVERSATION.

[bluestate10]

30. You are not going to get an argument here on DU.

So are you just being difficult? If you want a fight, go post in Yahoo blogs or go post your challenge on FR.

I am one that feel that rich should have the same federal tax burden as the middle and upper middle class. That the rich have a federal tax burden that is close to one half that of the MC and UMC is unfair and stands as an indictment of our political system.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. So does that mean you're a flat tax advocate?.........

You don't believe in a progressive tax system? Do you mean the rich SHOULD pay more than they're paying now? I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused.

But as to the original question. Doesn't it seem odd that everybody's asked to sacrifice, EXCEPT the wealthy.

[bluestate10]

39. I favor a progressive tax where the rich pay more than the 35% maximum.

The maximum for people earning more that $375,000 should be raised with income. A person making $375,000 pays a top rate of 35%, while a person making $10,000,000 pays 35% tops. The way the cap is applied is insane. High earners should face a 1% increase in the tax for every extra $100,000 earned.

I stated earlier that the tax system as it stands today is an indictment of our political system. What else do you want? You seem to be cranky, maybe you should drink a glass of warm milk :-)

[socialist_n_TN]

43. Great! There are some specific ideas...........

and I guess that definitely means the rich SHOULD be asked to do more. But that wasn't even the question I was getting at. BTW, I personally had no problems with the tax rates during the pre Reagan years (as I recall) and DEFINITELY not during the Clinton presidency, so I wouldn't have a problem with either.

Sorry if I appear cranky. I'm not really. I was just looking for justification for keeping things the same for people who make a LOT of money and asking the rest of us to take what are in essence cuts to our social safety net. The words bandied about mostly by the deficit hawks (and I know there are not many on here) are "sacrifice" and "austerity". I can't figure out the justifications and I haven't even heard it MENTIONED, so I was asking for help. IOW, even if you don't BELIEVE it, what have you HEARD are the justifications.

Finally, maybe I come off as cranky because everytime some sort of redistribution idea comes up I see a few posts on HERE talking about, "stealing the rich's money". To me it's not stealing, it's THEM sacrificing TOO.

Edited for syntax.

[bluestate10]

47. I don't think asking rich people to pay a fairer tax rate is asking them to sacrifice. nt

[hobbit709]

29. Because the rich believe the Divine Right of Kings applies to them too.

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Yep. So far the only three answers I've gotten.............

boil down to "The Divine Right of Wealth", "Don't Pick on Those Poor Rich Folks", and "Trickle Down". Oh yeah, there was one "I'm Not Playing!". :) The "Divine Right of Wealth" seems to have been the most popular.

[krispos42]

35. Because money is power, and they have all the power

Ergo, they have the power to exempt themselves from being austere.

Money is also speech, and they have all the speech. Ergo, they have the speech to convince lawmakers to exempt the rich from being austere.

[bluestate10]

44. Earning $10,000,000 per year.

And paying $200,000 more per year in taxes won't measurably impact the lifestyle of the $10,000,000 earner. One view that too many rich people have is that they can hold onto the money and give much of it away at their death. The informed rich understand that giving is a lifelong process.

[socialist_n_TN]

52. Another vote for the "Divine Right of Wealth".........

:)

[dawg]

36. Based on sound economic theory ... this is a false premise to begin with.

Austerity measures SHOULD NOT BE EMPLOYED!!! That is Hooverism, and if seriously pursued, will lead us to a double-dip recession and possibly a deflationary depression.

If I were king I would have let the upper end tax cuts expire, but I would have recycled that money into aid to state governments. All other tax cuts would have been temporarily extended. Unemployment benefits extended. No new "stimulus" tax cuts - that money instead would have gone into infrastructure spending.

To hell with the deficit right now - we've got hungry kids. If Wall Street threatens us with a vote of no confidence - they can go buy some fucking Euros. Good luck with that.

[socialist_n_TN]

40. I could go along with this program pretty easily........

:)

[Rex]

56. That is an easy one.

Because they don't have to. Easy.