Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Do I have this right, about right wing politics, rest in details?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (19406points) February 21st, 2016

Spend nothing on anything except the military.
Give the wealthy and corporations huge tax breaks.
Reduce minimum wage, it will get more people working.
Let private industry take over every thing, after all everything is much more efficient in the private sector.
Reduce all Government branches to bare bones, and everything will take care of it self.
Is that about it?
Then all will be right in the world?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

59 Answers

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Will that really work for the working slob?
Or just the wealthy corporate glut pigs?

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

That and lock all unemployed in santuaries.~

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 So who do you think wants this?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me That is what I keep hearing from our right wing friends, are you saying that isn’t true?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

This is the verbatum American Libertarian Party platform, who represent 7% of the voting population. That, in itself, isn’t really significant. However, many of these elements, are also common to the Christian Right (18%), and the Tea Party (10%), for a grand total of 35% of the voting American public, if one also includes “lean” Republican sympathizers. If you don’t like these platform elements, I suggest you get busy. And be sure to vote.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Goddammit, enough of this bullshit. No, you do NOT have this right, it’s so off base that it’s not even wrong. Following this logic left wingers want all money abolished, all pollution removed, every human perfectly equal, fed, educated and employed by a one state, daddy figure Gov’t. NOBODY believes that just like NOBODY on the right wing actually wants what you describe. This crap is why we have a sharp divide. Just fucking stop, it’s not us against them or them against us. It’s about sharing ideas, compromise and reason. Why do people follow and parrot the fringes? Don’t tell me republicans do this because I know hundreds and NONE of them actually think like this. Sooo many on the left think that people on the right are just like those on fox news or believe whatever Rush Limbaugh says. I know a good deal of Liberals and they don’t think like Karl Marx. Want to vote in this election? take that card out of your pocket and burn it. Then go talk with the people who you consider politically opposite to you and learn from them. They’ll have some things right regardless of what side you find yourself on.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me Well then enlighten us and tell us what the right wingers want, because this is the song I keep hearing.
I hear time and time again that everything should be in the private sector.
and so forth but please tell us the real way.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 turn off the TV and go talk to people.

Zaku's avatar

You forgot:

Ban abortion

Build gigantic walls along the borders

Cut all social programs

Let the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the insane, etc, find work or starve on the streets with no medical care, or possibly join the army

Make it illegal for government employees to say “climate change” or “global warming”.

USA is for the white Christian men with jobs and/or money, and their women and pets and trucks and guns.

Corporations count as white Christian men for all purposes except legal responsibility.

Homosexuality should be treated as a crime and/or disease.

probably a lot of other inhumane BS I’m not thinking of right now.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

WOW, you guys are just petty trolls.

Zaku's avatar

Pretty sure all of mine are actual policies and suggested policies, though with some hyperbole for #3, 4, 6, & 7.

Zaku's avatar

“I do believe if you have an abortion you are committing murder.”

The Washington Times – Tuesday, June 16, 2015:
“Donald Trump said Tuesday that if elected president he will erect a wall along the country’s southern border… Mr. Trump has long touted what he sees as his unmatched skills when it comes to building walls and doing so at the best bang for the buck.”
“the greatest wall you’ve ever seen”
“I want it to be so beautiful because maybe someday they’re going to call it the Trump wall,”

“Republicans say Social Security is going broke, and they propose changes that would cut benefits or otherwise undermine the program.”
“As if begging for a Groundhog Day joke, House Republicans will vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act again on Tuesday. It’ll be the 56th shot they’ve taken at the law”
– The Atlantic
“Republicans Just Won the Food Stamp War
Congress is set to approve $9 billion in cuts to the food stamp program even as a record number of Americans live in poverty.”
– Mother Jones

“GOP cuts target food aid for low-income families”
– CBS News

Ronald Reagan
“You can’t help those who simply will not be helped. One problem that
we’ve had, even in the best of times, is people who are sleeping on
the grates, the homeless who are homeless, you might say, by choice.”
—President Reagan, ⅓1/84, on Good Morning America, defending his
administration against charges of callousness.

Dan Quayle
“People are not homeless if they’re sleeping in the streets of their
own hometowns.”

Newt Gingrich
“You can help Sam or Sally, you can’t help the class. The minute
somebody says to you, ‘Let’s help the homeless,’ you know they don’t
get it.”—Sep. 01, 1994 – from an article in Commentary Magazine

Rush Limbaugh
“One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the homeless
olympics…the 10-metre shopping cart relay, the dumpster dig, and the
hop, skip, and trip.”—Rush Limbaugh

Florida Isn’t the Only State to ‘Ban’ Climate Change

Trump: Mexican ‘rapists’ coming now, Middle East ‘terrorists’ coming soon

“Huckabee wants to scrap the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and replace it with the Biblical dictate that all Americans must keep the Sabbath holy and that all Americans cannot worship any god other than the god of the Christian Bible.”

Representative Todd “legitimate rape” Akin

tinyfaery's avatar

No rebuttal from the right side? This was getting good.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

No need, this is a circle jerk. Anyone can use the almighty Google to drum up a wall of text like this and completely miss the point in the process.Yeah tribalism woohoo! My faith in humanity, -1.

josie's avatar

Irrelevant in a democratic republic.

That list of false alternatives will never get anybody elected.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Are you saying those links that @Zaku posted are false and untrue??
They were all said or done by die hard right wingers, now you’re saying they are false??

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me what is the point in the process, the working slob has to keep taking it up the butt, while the rich keep getting richer is that the point?
I am all for capitalism as long as it doesn’t crush the people on the bottom while achieving it.

CWOTUS's avatar

I also know a lot of Republicans who discuss politics – and vote – as well as Democrats who are just as knowledgeable on the issues and just as committed to their votes. I also know a great number of libertarians (uppercase and lowercase “L”), who probably aren’t as eager to vote, knowing that for them it’s pissing into a hurricane, but are more knowledgeable on most issues. (I may be biased.)

I do not know any Republicans who are strongly for Trump. Nearly anyone I talk to about him, though, understands his appeal. For the most part, and I would expect that this holds true among many of his supporters, as well, he is favored in spite of many of the wild and idiotic things that he says, and not because of those things. They seem to feel, rightly or wrongly, that “at least he’s not an Establishment guy”, and that he will shake things up, presumably in ways that they favor. (This seems to hold true for fans of Bernie Sanders, too, who is perceived as an outsider not in the mold of those candidates – on both sides! – who quietly appeal to heavily moneyed interests, while talking a populist game. Trump is the first – nominal – Republican to appeal to a populist base, at least that I can recall. Reagan obviously had that appeal, but part of that appeal was a huge dissatisfaction with the sitting president that he first ran against, and later his proxy, the former Vice President, Mondale. So that’s the closest parallel I can point to in recent history.) I expect that he would do a lot to shake things up, but I’m not in favor of random change just for the sake of change. And I’m sure that he would not change the things that need to be changed the most, or if he did, he would make them worse. He also tends to speak in sound bytes and platitudes, which scares the hell out of me. Ditto Bernie.

The huge problems with Trump are apparent to anyone who wants to admit the truth about him: He seems to mouth whatever things will make him popular in the moment, without much regard to truth, achieveability, constitutionality or simple reason and logic. Ditto Bernie Sanders. But to their supporters the big draw is “He’s not one of them.” He’s not an insider, and he’s not part of the crowd who mucked things up this badly.

I can say that the libertarian position, by and large, is to scale back the US Federal government to that which is described by the Constitution. That means a great cutback in the Executive alphabet soup that runs so much of our economy. It means huge tax cuts for everyone (eventually), but for those on the bottom who pay little or no tax as it is that just seems to be “a tax cut for the rich”. Well, since they pay the bulk of the taxes – directly, anyway – that’s just the way tax cuts would work.

Since libertarians generally subscribe to what we call the Non-Aggression Principle (simply put: “no first strike”, the use of force is for defensive purposes only) Defense would also be scaled back greatly. (It could be reasonably argued by libertarians – and it is argued – that a globally based defensive force is still necessary to protect allies by treaty and vital trade routes, but I’m not going to get into that here. So whether we only have a continental defense force or a world-wide one is still an open question.)

But to get to the point you keep coming back to, @SQUEEKY2, yes, the rich would get richer – in general – because they are the ones taking risks in starting and expanding new businesses. I’m not envious of those who take those risks when they manage the risks and eventually reap the rewards. I am, and libertarians are in general, opposed to the kind of crony capitalism and corporatism that is what so many know-nothings believe to be “real capitalism”, including corporations who provide lobbyists to write the rules and regulations that stifle competition.

There is also a great debate among libertarians whether we should tightly seal the borders (not “build a wall”, but at least attempt to enforce existing immigration law), or whether we should enable a far more open and accepting immigration policy. None of these questions are cut-and-dried.

Finally, and this cannot be stressed enough, NOTHING will create Utopia. Trump can’t do it. Sanders cannot do it. Clinton certainly won’t. An angel from Heaven could not. And because of the huge deadweight of the current government and its un-elected bureaucracy, any significant change will be glacial. It’s the culture that needs to change more than anything.

Fortunately, the one thing that gives me some hope for the future is that the culture does seem to be leaning ever more gradually libertarian. I’m disappointed that the top-of-the-ticket 2016 election seems to be going in a different direction, but I have no doubt that Congress – nobody’s talking about Congress these days – will shift, however gradually, a bit more in that direction. States, too, in general. So there is hope.

Zaku's avatar

I never said all people who identify as Republican or Right-Wing all think what I posted. But somehow what used to be the Republican & Right-Wing are vanished and somehow seemingly replaced by many very uncooperative, extreme, and often seemingly cooky characters. Reagan used to be considered Right-Wing, and the recent Republicans have tried to invoke his name hoping we forget he was a Hollywood actor figurehead who didn’t always seem to really know what he was reading (even if his acting skills let him nod and inflect at the right times). But now the policies and statements of his administration actually contradict what the current so-called Republicans call for, such as his point that Social Security isn’t part of revenue since it’s a separate system, so hands off.

Be that as it may, as I’ve said on many other threads over the years, I think the Republican versus Democrat dramas are largely a distraction from the actual power politics, which are about how most of the government is beholden to corporations in so many ways and at so many levels. It has been for decades, but it’s been getting worse and more blatant.

Sure Bernie Sanders can’t create Utopia. The President isn’t actually all that powerful by himself. But at least he does call out the above situation consistently and openly. That system has to go, sooner or later, and the sooner the better.

JLeslie's avatar

It sure does sound like that’s the Republican schtick some of the time. Most Republicans I know aren’t so extreme, but I do know some who at least sound like that during discussions, but I’m not sure when push comes to shove if they would follow through on all of those things if they were President (and had a magic wand) and could. Most of my personal Republican friends and I agree about 80% of the time in political topics. It’s just the last 20% that separate us and cause us to identify one way or another. The exception is my Republican friends in the Bible Belt who are religious. They tend to be way more extreme than my northeast or Midwest Republican friends. There are exceptions everywhere though.

I’m not sure why Trump came up, I skimmed too fast, but I don’t see him as being an example of an extreme right winger.

@Zaku I consider Reagan part of the right wing. Deficit got bigger, deregulation, wanted the Surgeon General to say abortions are a serious health risk to the mother, and didn’t want the Surgeon General to talk about HIV, because it was a gay disease and any discussion about the topic included talking about sex. Yeah, no, Reagan still had that religious right thing going on enough that it was annoying and sometimes scary.

@Espiritus_Corvus Interesting statistics. I wonder if the libertarians (the 7%) tend to be concentrated in specific cities? This would give more power since we use the electoral college to vote in a President.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

In all the time I’ve been on Fluther I don’t think I’ve seen so many absolutes in a question and it’s following posts.

There’s enough straw going on here to feed the entire US’s WW1 mounted corps.

Cruiser's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus Your math is very misleading as Republicans only make up appr. 30% of the total voting population. Democrats comprise a whopping 31% and the rest are independents of one form or another. As far as the extreme groups you listed those on the far right can be in one or all 3 of those groups so the true total far right conservatives probably won’t exceed the 18% of the Christian Right (if those are indeed true percentages). Those in the far right are a minority in the Republican party and why Rubio and Cruz are struggling to be relevant in the Primaries.

Zaku's avatar

@JLeslie I agree, which is why I was mentioning that it seemed striking to me that some of Reagan’s policies and statements seem “far left” in comparison to the current Republican positions. I was trying to use him as a landmark to illustrate how the conversations have drifted far to the right since the 1980’s.

They’ve also drifted far to the retarded and crazy, it seems to me. Reagan seemed like an obvious not-very-smart speech reader/actor/figurehead back in the day, but GW Bush? Palin? Bachman?

I think the news media monopoly and degradation and corporate obedience versus actual thinking journalism enables it. I like to think that Walter Cronkite would not have remained polite at the prospect of presidents and vice presidents who can’t speak coherently and don’t know that Africa is a continent.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

“No rebuttal from the right side? This was getting good.”

@tinyfaery Never speak again about politics if you are interested in a true debate.

Go @jerv

MollyMcGuire's avatar

No, but you write a great troll question.

jerv's avatar

It’s a bit hard to say since there are more than a few Conservatives who have been disenfranchised by the radicalization of the GOP that some people refute ever happened. A lot depends on where you draw the line; how far right is “far right”? Some would say Hillary Clinto is “far right” while others would say Ted Cruz is a flaming liberal.

@Cruiser Looking at some of the people we have in the US Congress and as governors of more than a couple of states, I think it safe to assume that there are a lot of people supporting far-right policies while self-identifying as “Independent”.

Given the defection rates I’ve seen in recent years and who has won many GOP nominations and general elections, the only way I see that you could be correct about the far-right being a minority is voter turnout among all other demographics combined being lower than the turnout among far-right voters alone. And while voter turnout has been pretty low, your numbers would imply voter turnout of well under 30% and unevenly distributed in a way I find statistically unlikely barring the sort of corruption that would make Boss Tweed look like the epitome of fair play.

Occam’s Razor dictates that it’s far more likely that the polling data you cited (and presumably used to form your own opinion) is inaccurate enough that even the soundest logic would result in incorrect conclusions. I find it far easier to believe that polling people about their party affiliation doesn’t really tell us as much about where their ideology lies as things like election results and a lot more people will call themselves Independent than actually are than I do believing that fewer than 20% of voters can put as many wingnuts in office as they have.

Also, I was under the impression that Cruz was struggling because he isn’t radical enough.

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv I will have to very respectfully disagree with you on this one as I will ask you to consider the 2014 landslide victory the Republicans enjoyed all because they championed their promise to derail ObamaCare and various other policies of Obama. How many of those promises did they follow through on?? ZERO Boehner put the kibosh on any efforts the Tea Party sympathizers put forth. They were DOA before they even got started. Even look at Ryan taking over control of the House and he stepped aside and his first action as Speaker he let the 1.1 T spending bill that approved funding for parts of Obamacare. The mess from exploding Tea Party heads had to be vast.

I will also disagree that Cruz isn’t radical enough as that would IMO be very hard to do and the fact that he is now in Rubio’s shadow is flurther proof of that being radical for radical’s sake is not working.

Of course I believe you are smart enough to see through this turnabout by the hard line Republicans was their sensitivity that such obstructionist actions would surely hurt them in the Nov election.

jerv's avatar

@Cruiser If you were correct, Trump’s appeal would’ve worn off long ago, and there wouldn’t be enough Tea Party sympathizers in Congress to even be worth addressing.

The numbers I’ve seen show Rubio’s surge wasn’t enough to put him in 2nd and Trump pulled away from Cruz again. While it’s still possible for Rubio to pass Cruz or Trump to plummet like a rock, that hasn’t happened yet. This isn’t the first time your assertions have run counter to what I’ve seen, so I am curious where you get your numbers from. Maybe you are talking about just the numbers of your home state?

I see a fractured party that has a lot of people still thinking that the party hasn’t changed in the last century that has disenfranchised a lot of people. I see a party where some have realized that obstructionism will hurt them in the general election but others don’t care because they are so wrapped up in dogma that they believe they will be protected and have their victory assured by God and/or The Invisible Hand of the Free Market.

We’ll pretty much have to agree to disagree here. If we can’t even agree on the relative positions of Rubio and Cruz in the polls, I don’t think we can agree on much of anything relevant to this thread.

Cruiser's avatar

@jerv You fall victim to the very assumption of others who lump Trump into some Tea Party movement. A comfortable place for Dems to be until you consider a larger, complicated and emotional set of dominoes at play.

The events of late that include the appeal of both Trump and Sanders have everything and only everything to do with a collective disdain for conventional political wisdom on both sides of the isle. And I think know where the growing fear on the left is that Sanders will own that narrative yet loose to Hillary in the long run when in the final Presidential show down you will have a very disenfranchised group of voters that will be least concerned with party affiliation (Hillary) and more determined to vote for the candidate that least represents the do nothing Washington so many are fed up with (Trump). Can you see yourself envisioning Trump as President?? I can’t….but I am not going to keep my head in the sand below my feet either and prepare myself for this possibility.

Jaxk's avatar

This is obviously not a serious question. It is phrased to solicit the usual bashing and ridicule so often used by the left. Conservatives want smaller government and liberals want it bigger. I find it almost funny that liberals complain the our government is in the pocket of big business and the wealthy. That the government is corrupt. So what is their solution, more government. The mind boggles at that circular logic.

Zaku's avatar

@Jaxk Actually, I’d say the solution is to vote out the corporate pawns, and vote in honest anti-corruption candidates. That’s what the Sanders campaign is mainly about.

Jaxk's avatar

@Zaku – That’s not what I’ve heard. His candidacy is all about free stuff.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@Jaxk Please link to one mainstream reference where a “Liberal” says specifically that they want bigger government. Then show me a mainstream source where “Liberals” say that the ALL want big government.

Elements Required:
The individual must identify themselves as a Liberal.
They must say specifically that they want big government.
They must say that ALL Liberals want big government.

jerv's avatar


@Cruiser There is so much wrong there that the only response I can make is acknowledge that I read it and move on.

@Jaxk You are correct that this isn’t a serious question. I originally came in here just to poke a little fun at the non-questionness of it and stuck around for @Cruiser until it was obvious that it would be neither productive nor entertaining to continue. I was about to leave before you caught my eye.

By your logic, the current crop of Republicans are more Liberal than any Democrat. More prisons, more government intrusion into people’s affairs, more money spent on things that have negligible/no ROI…. my mind boggles at that circular “logic”.

But if you are of the opinion that Sanders is all about free stuff while conveniently neglecting that he has a plan to pay for it unlike make of the expensive things that Conservatives have put on our nation’s grandchildren’s credit card, then I’m just going to have a chuckle at the fact that your dogma has caused you to develop some hue, gaping blind spots then thank you for that amusement.

Now to leave before full-blown cognitive dissonance turns this thread ugly.

Jaxk's avatar

@jerv – An estimated $17 TRILLION in new spending. There are not enough businesses to bankrupt to get that kind of money. As far as what I believe, you have no idea.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m somewhat average among my peers politically. I identify right because of my views on gov’t spending, abortion, gun control and immigration, etc.. I don’t have any hard lines on that stuff either, it’s mostly grey and I could probably write a dissertation on each of them. I have some strong liberal leanings when it comes to abortion yes it’s there twice social issues like gay rights, environmental policy, religion….
I literally don’t know a single person who follows their party line to the letter and has an IQ greater than around 85.

Jaxk's avatar

Good answer. Finally someone that doesn’t say all or none. I would agree that I also don’t know anyone that follows the party line exactly. Even the candidates.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Ok tell me where I am wrong, the Rep/cons say No spending we are up to our ears in debt and can’t afford anything that isn’t for the military, that is what I keep hearing is it wrong?

Give big business and Corporations more tax breaks, then they will hire the working slob, who really does pay all the nations bills,trickle down at it’s finest ,that is what I keep hearing is it wrong?

Put most of what the Government does now ,into the hands of the private sector,it will be much more efficient and cost less for the tax payer, that has worked so well with highway maintenance < little joke there, but that is what I keep hearing is it wrong?

Then there are the other points that @Zaku pointed out are they all wrong because that is what we keep hearing.

Zaku's avatar

@Jaxk I don’t think you’ve been listening very hard. In fact, Clinton has been accusing Sanders of being a “one issue” candidate, with the “one issue” being getting the corporate payola out of government.

The side effects of that, if successful, would be having the government do (and use funds for) things the people actually want, instead of the things the corporations want.

Picture form:

The arguments that certain thing can or can’t be afforded in certain ways are distractions. Sanders’ plans aren’t about bankrupting anyone.

Jaxk's avatar

Yes, I’m sure that’s what you keep hearing but it’s not what they’ve been saying. We are up to our ears in debt but it’s not no spending on anything but military, it’s no new spending. If we want new spending the way to get that is by growing the economy. That will bring in new revenue and close the gap.

The working slob does not pay all the bills. In fact they pay very little of the bills. We have the highest corporate tax in the world and if we don’t want more companies moving over seas, we must be competitive.

As for highway maintenance, We spent a $trillion on the Stimulus, specifically to fix that. Government in it’s infinite wisdom choose to spend it on frisby parks and state bailouts. Democrats complain that it wasn’t big enough. How many frisby parks do we need?

Zaku's avatar

It is fascinating how not only are there huge disconnects in values, but huge disconnects in apparent facts. No wonder there’s an impasse. America needs an impartial moderator.

e.g. One side says we have the highest corporate tax in the world, while the other says the big corporations are paying little or no taxes and receiving massive giveaways.

Jaxk's avatar

@Zaku – If you’re proposing $17 trillion in new spending, that’s not allocating the revenue that’s irresponsible. His whole shtick is based on revenge against the corporations. He has said his tax rate may go as high as 90%. I doubt we could survive in this age with that rate. With state tax that would put the top rate over 100%. He may have moderated his view somewhat in recent months but he is a scary candidate. Businesses would have to leave the country or go under. Just because he doesn’t say he wants to bankrupt everyone doesn’t mean that wouldn’t be the result.

Jaxk's avatar

@Zaku – That’s what happens when people use one-offs to make their points. Oil companies are losing money right now. I’m sure once that turns around the complaints will rain in that the oil companies aren’t paying their fair share. They will be using their losses to offset the gains. A single snapshot in time never tells the whole story.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Per capita the working slob pay more of his/hers income to taxes than Corporations do, and that has been proven time and time again.

Even Warren Buffet said his secretary pays a higher percentage of her gross income to taxes than he does, and yet the rep/cons still say the corporations pay all the taxes really??

Cruiser's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Sounds great but you could not be more wrong especially in light that over 43% of workers in America pay zero in income taxes. Plus I get the feeling you are confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates and when you compare effective tax rates of the working slobs of America who for the sake of argument make $50,000 per year they are taxed at 11% of their income and with deductions allowed will probably end up getting refunds after April 15th. I will use me as an example since I own a corporation. I am an S corp which means my income is directly taxed on a personal level and my effective rate is 28%. 11% vs 28% is over double so I fail to see your issue you have in light that 43% of people don’t pay tax and those “working slobs” that do are paying 11% and evil corporations like me pay 28%.

As far as the Buffet story is most if not all his income is dividend and capital gains income and assuming his income is at the 1% level his tax rate is a flat 20%. His secretary on the other hand who is purported to make between $200,000 and $500,000 per year, yes is taxed at a higher rate than Warren at a whopping 23% tax rate.

Bernie Sanders is well aware of all this but would have a much harder time convincing his faithful if he told all the actual facts behind his income disparity story.

CWOTUS's avatar

It’s probably true that Warren Buffett and others who invest long term and live off of those proceeds pay a lower “marginal tax rate” (as @Cruiser has explained) than the vast majority of us who work for a salary and pay income tax based on that.

The capital gains tax rate, at least for long term investors, is much lower than the rate for salaried income. So it is very likely that Mr. Buffett pays a lower overall percentage of his earnings to tax. (He also doesn’t have to pay Social Security “contributions” – the most regressive tax that we have in the US – on those earnings, as they are not “salary”.) And there is a perfectly valid economic reason for that. Those people who invest fortunes in new business and business expansions, while they often seem to make outsize gains, also take considerable risk. The markets don’t always go up. “Trees don’t grow to the sky” as the saying goes, and not every business or business expansion is successful. Those investments that are successful frequently – more often than not – take a long time and a lot of sweat (on the part of the owners as well as the salaried and hourly workers) to finally break even and then turn a profit. There has to be an incentive for people to take on that risk, and to stick with it for the long term.

Many, if not most, “working stiffs” (I so loathe the term “working slobs”) fail to understand that while “their job” might at times feel iffy and on the block to them, it’s another kettle of fish when one’s entire investing career can hang in the balance – sometimes for years – while the owner / investor sweats blood waiting to see if it will pay off or not. I wish this were more widely understood.

krain's avatar

@Zaku but huge disconnects in apparent facts

@jca US Corporations that pay no tax

The reason you two are disconnected from facts is because you’re getting your information from inferior sources.

Any publically traded company, by law, has to disclose their financials to the public and SEC regulators.

You say these corporations pay no taxes because your source says so, well lets take a look at their actual financials.

Looky here, their income before taxes was 608 million and their income after paying taxes was 376 million. Le Connectivity Pays Taxes

Change the name of the symbol for each corporation your source listed as not paying taxes and you will see that they all pay taxes and plenty of it.

You’re not helping by spreading misinformation to everyone or maybe that is what the democrats are all about?

Cruiser's avatar

@krain First of welcome to the party…and additionally these zero dollar corporate tax returns often reflect write off from losses incurred from sale of assets in any calendar year…the write off of accrued losses and or distributions….stock dividends….all sorts of creative AND leagal ways C Corps can whittle down taxable income to zero while the stock holders reap all sorts of benefits. Not rocket science.

dammitjanetfromvegas's avatar

I have many Republican friends and this is exactly how many of them think. Even my best friend of almost 40 years thinks this way and it almost ended our friendship.

My sampling is not small. I have many friends and acquaintances from all over this country.

Zaku's avatar

@krain Not only are we getting our information from inferior sources, we’re also not stopping to actually agree on the subjects and the facts of the subjects in a full complete way. Not even close. We’re not even explaining who or what we’re talking about most of the time. The question didn’t mention what it’s subject was; it just listed a set of positions, and I chimed in with a list that seemed to fit, and people got offended, with hardly anyone even saying who they were talking about.

Even looking at your more detailed source, your link says it’s about Le Connectivity, but goes to data about Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and lists five different columns of numbers which include:
* A 3-month period where they lost half a billion dollars, and taxes softened that to only 373 million lost, somehow.
* Three 3-month periods where they seem to have paid $120–130 million.
* A 3-month period where they reported making $126 million before tax, and then they have their income after tax at $2,128 – somehow paying taxes got them two billion dollars.

So clearly, even when you have access to some accounting numbers, there’s still a lot to understand and a lot of detail to cover. Since companies inter-own each other and do things such as carry over losses and depreciate and all sorts of other stuff, such as pay huge teams of professionals to figure out how to get the best deals from taxes, as GE got a lot of attention for doing

Unfortunately, the media and government have only so much attention allocated to trying to understand what all is going on.

krain's avatar

That is a summary just so you would understand that they pay taxes. If you want details, you’re going to have to read all of this

Zaku's avatar

Laugh! I’ll get right on that. :-)

Jaxk's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 – Most of this has already been said so I’ll just add a few details. Here is a list of the average tax rates for the 5 well as the top 1%. The average tax rate is simply tax devided by income to get the rate. It includes Cap gains as well as salary income. I know many have been saying the rich don’t pay as much as the middle class but it simply isn’t true.

@jca – Again, most of this has already been covered so I won’t reargue those points. Your list however covers overseas income that was built overseas and sold overseas. It never reached our shores and is not income we are entitled to tax. Until it actually reaches our shores, it’s not US income. For instance if Toyota builds and sells cars in the US any profits they make on those cars is subject to US taxation. The cars they build and sell in Japan is not. But if GM builds and sells cars in Japan they are subject to Japans taxation And for some reason we feel they are also subject to US taxation. That’s why those companies don’t bring the money back to the US because as long as it stays overseas, we can’t get our hands on it. If you want to look at international companies that pay little or no tax, you can’t include the revenues from overseas operations. Your sources do.

Zaku's avatar

@Jaxk Of course the basic tax brackets do go up the more income per year, but not nearly as steep as it used to be, and people who have scads of income naturally consult people who have found ways to avoid paying that rate. Like, they dump it into a “Life Insurance” policy that is actually an investment, or they find ways that businesses or stocks they own can have losses that apply to their taxes, or who knows what else. The “rich pay less” stories are (as I assume you know) about loopholes that may be considered unfair. The real discussion about that is which deductions are really unfair or abusable or not, and is pretty complex.

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssdc – cat input

The overseas issue is also complex. Some of the US Government would like to tax all income of its people, no matter whether it’s out of country or not, and even when the foreign countries tax it too, which I agree with you there should be ways for individual humans to do things abroad including earning money, and not have the US Government want to know about it and have a cut, especially if foreign governments already taxes it. But the issues I see are that giant corporations and their lawyers may/do find clever ways to exploit it, and some/many people get nailed by double taxation etc., while others do not.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Nice answer there @Zaku , and @Jaxk you say it is totally untrue that the working stiff pays more of his gross income to taxes than Corporations do.
While it’s nice of you to look out for the big guys,and say the working stiff gets all the breaks .

When businesses start making big money they are looking for every tax loop hole available , to them, loop holes the average working stiff does not have.
I do not blame them for using and taking advantage of these tax breaks,but to keep saying that Corporations are so hard done by, makes me want to toss my cookies.
And big corporations while do pay a lot of tax, see I am not denying it, but I still feel the working stiff pays more of his/hers gross income than any big corporation does.
And maybe the bottom 43% pay little to no income tax but the other 57% really do.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

One thing you and I actually agree on is that the middle class are getting screwed. Thing is both parties are doing the screwing. Both left and right extremes have the effect of inverting the normal distribution.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther