Political discussion thread

California is a state that conservatives love to use to attack liberalism.  Fine, California is going bankrupt, although I suspect there are more reasons for it than simply liberal economic policies.  I don't really know, but I would make a guess that there were probably greedy rich people who demanded their taxes be lowered or fled the state because they were too greedy to man up and face their societal responsibilities, and that is part of the crisis.

But no, I don't know enough about Cali to be sure of that.  It doesn't change the fact that the right leaning states take more money from the feds than the left leaning states do. 

To be fair..even though I no longer support taxing the sh*t out of the rich...the whole "itll hurt the economy" thing is kinda bullcrap. Has it ever in the past?

I mean if its 70% sure but I really don't see how it'll hurt the economy, doesn't make any sense to me.
Anyway, it's all kinda silly. The really super duper rich will always find a way out. I hate it...think it's sh*t that we have to work and pay all our tax while the fat cats get out of most of it but thats reality....

Which is why I'm now much more concerned about lowering most of ours than being angry at a few rich asses.
Also we need to define rich. The whole 250K level I don't buy. If you make that much its through hard work. Us liberals always think of the billionaires, the big bankers, investors etc but that's a very small segment. Its really unfair to think of 250K and Warren Buffet as the same  Hell, if you live in NYC 250K really isn't even an exorbitant amount.

It makes me mad that people who just shift money around, and make $ for people who already have alot of $ make so much and don't contribute much to the economy...but what can ya do?


Edited by JJLehto - November 28 2012 at 19:31

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Is that because there are twice as many of them, or is it on average? It is based on the amount of federal aid each state receives/the amount of federal tax dollars paid by the population of that state.  17 out of the top 20 states (those with the highest ratio) are "red" states. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

With the exception of D.C., that list seems to tally rather well with the amount of rich people that live in each state. I suspect it has more to do with the denominator (federal taxes paid) than the numerator (Federal Funds received). The link to the original report is broken, so I can't say for sure.

You really think California is in trouble because greedy rich people left the state? Have you forgotten about Hollywood, the biggest hub of greedy rich people in the country?

dtguitarfan wrote: Are you one of the richie rich? You sure defend them like you are. TAX 'EM I SAY!

Does this mark the point where you gave up on making a convincing point? Or was it earlier and I missed it?

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: From the IRS tax year 2009 (the latest for which they have data): People making over $100,000 paid 74.6% of federal income taxes and made 49.4% of the income. How is that not paying their fair share? Are you one of the richie rich? You sure defend them like you are. TAX 'EM I SAY! . Nope. Not a bit. However, I do plan to be some day and for that to happen it would be nice to have a thriving economy, which will not happen if we keep raising taxes. Are you an economist?

Yes.

Of course red states have more poor people on average. Most of the richest people in the country live in either California or New York or New England, which are overwhelmingly blue. States like Mississippi and Alabama have always been poor, even when they were majority Democrat. I don't think there are any surprises there. I certainly don't buy into your insinuation that conservative policies cause more poor people. For one thing, the Southern states have a lot more immigrants, who tend to be poor. It has more to do with history and demographics than policies, but we digress.

If you don't like Texas, there are buses leaving every day.

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: Of course red states have more poor people on average. Most of the richest people in the country live in either California or New York or New England, which are overwhelmingly blue. States like Mississippi and Alabama have always been poor, even when they were majority Democrat. I don't think there are any surprises there. I certainly don't buy into your insinuation that conservative policies cause more poor people. For one thing, the Southern states have a lot more immigrants, who tend to be poor. It has more to do with history and demographics than policies, but we digress. If you don't like Texas, there are buses leaving every day. The Doctor, who is apparently now talking about himself in the third person, has a car.  I want to, and intend to someday as soon as finances permit.  Moving ain't cheap.  I know you think that any middle class or poor person can just pick up stakes as easily as the wealthy and move if they don't like it somewhere.  It ain't that easy.  Mississippi and Alabama have always been conservative though, even when they were Democrats, they were still on the right side of the political spectrum.

The Doctor wrote: I want to, and intend to someday as soon as finances permit.  Moving ain't cheap.  I know you think that any middle class or poor person can just pick up stakes as easily as the wealthy and move if they don't like it somewhere.  It ain't that easy.

I would think it would be a lot easier to move if you were poor rather than rich, because you would have fewer possessions to take with you. Put the stuff you really care about in the trunk of your car, toss the rest and just go. What's hard about that?

There is a lot to unpack there. I will do my best.

dtguitarfan wrote: Wow. Than how is it possible for you to deny that our current tax rate is actually relatively low, historically speaking, and that the higher brackets' tax rates are even lower? I don't deny it. I never have. I just don't see the relevance. Gladiator fights are also at historically low levels. Should we increase them? And to deny that the economy HAS been better when the rich have been taxed more? I don't deny it. I never have. I just don't see the relevance. The economy has been better when we were in the cold war with Russia. Should we start that again? And to deny the data that having lowered taxes on the rich in the past did NOT make anything better? No one is talking about lowering taxes on the rich, so stop saying they are. The discussion is whether to raise taxes on the rich. You'll have to show me the data you're talking about, anyway. There was a clear economic boom after the tax cuts proposed by Kennedy went into effect. And to deny that the recession hasn't really hurt the higher brackets - actually, they've made out quite well and increased their wealth the whole time? They have done relatively well, but they would have done better in the absence of the recession, so your contention that they haven't been hurt is false. Look, they HAVE to raise taxes somewhere in order to pay for all this stuff, and I think it makes more sense to raise it on the rich, who were not really hurt by the recession. Does it scare a lot of people? Sure. Is it necessary? Yes. If it's a choice between raising it on the rich and raising it on the lower and middle class, it's an easy choice. Your premise is false, as I keep pointing out, for a number of reasons. If it were true that we had to raise taxes to pay for "all this stuff" I might agree with you, but it is not. 1. Raising tax rates does not guarantee tax revenue. In some cases, higher tax rates result in lower tax revenue. I rarely hear democrats actually discussing revenue in terms of dollar values, and I believe the tax debate is really about "fairness" instead, which I reject. 2. Even if the top rates went up to 100% and we assume CBO's (flawed) revenue numbers are right, you would not get anywhere near the amount needed to pay for "all this stuff." 3. "All this stuff" is mostly wasteful spending that shouldn't be funded in the first place. Democrats love to praise the Clinton years for their prosperity. Why is returning to Clinton era levels of spending suddenly so Draconian?

Edited by thellama73 - November 29 2012 at 11:05

^ yes, there are many hidden costs in moving. Also if you are a renter coming up with the initial outlay of cash for a new rental is daunting.