When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Thanks Brain. I remember thirty years ago the joke was that everybody voted Democrat until they had some money in the bank, then they voted Republican to get lower taxes. Basically the young voted on principal because they had no real skin in the game, but became economically conservative when it was their money. I've always considered this the American way - lots of youthful foolishness corrected by the grim reality of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
When the Jimmy Carr tax "scandal" broke in England, I became aware of their attitude on taxes, which seemed to be that even though what he did was completely legal, he had failed to pay his "fair share". The term "fair share" was used a lot in the news coverage, some of which was rich-guy schadenfreude because Carr was loaded, but there seemed to be a genuine public sentiment that the right thing to do was give the government almost half your money, because otherwise who would pay for granny's chemotherapy. Point is, a politician wanting to raise taxes in old blighty apparently was no disqualifier for office in the eyes of the voting public.
Right or not, the Democrats are thought of as the party of high taxes. If monied, middle-aged people are now voting Democrat at higher rates in this country, what that says to me is that "principal" is overtaking basic self-preservation, that is, the desire to preserve your own money from the government or anybody else.
Thomas Sowell has said that when taxes are super high on the super rich, less taxes are collected and not the other way around. There are always tax shelters with D's or R's but when allowed to keep more of their money, then more of it is put back into the economy instead of put away for later. I'm no economist, I'm just paraphrasing what one said.
But it would make sense that if you have money and are voting for higher taxes on it, you are also getting something back in return, one way or another. IMO, principles have nothing to do with it.
Right or not, the Democrats are thought of as the party of high taxes. If monied, middle-aged people are now voting Democrat at higher rates in this country, what that says to me is that "principal" is overtaking basic self-preservation, that is, the desire to preserve your own money from the government or anybody else.
Thomas Sowell has said that when taxes are super high on the super rich, less taxes are collected and not the other way around. There are always tax shelters with D's or R's but when allowed to keep more of their money, then more of it is put back into the economy instead of put away for later. I'm no economist, I'm just paraphrasing what one said.
But it would make sense that if you have money and are voting for higher taxes on it, you are also getting something back in return, one way or another. IMO, principles have nothing to do with it.
This is an old fallacy that has been thrown around for a long time. Most probably know of the idea from the "Laffer curve", which predicts that as taxes go up, total tax revenue will increase and then start to decrease. The whole idea is based on the idea that if taxes were 100%, nobody would work at all because they wouldnt make any money, and therfore tax revenue would be 0. It almost makes sense if you dont think about it for very long.
The reality is that organizations have a single top priority that supersedes all else, and that is maximizing profit. It doesn not matter what the tax rate is, they will always seek to exploit tax loopholes. The idea that taxes being kept lower would make companies suddenly say "Oh! That tax rate is very reasonable, we will pay our taxes even though we could easily avoid it! Thank you fiscal conservatives for incentivizing capitalist like us!"
That is obviously bullshit.
Back when America was "great", before the hippies, and everybody had a white picket fence. Marginal income tax rates were over 90% for the highest earners. Corporate tax rates also peaked in the 50s.
Hell, the richest American of all time (adjusted for inflation), Johnn Rockefeller, was paying income taxes nearly 80% after 1935.
Im not saying that raising income taxes will fix everything. But its not a bad idea at all. If income taxes were as high as they once were, and loopholes were sealed up, these people would just pay themselves the measly $4,999,999 salary every year, and the rest of the money would stay in their company. They wouldnt scale back production and lay off jobs, they would still make all that money in their company, they just couldnt put it directly in their pocket. Hopefully some of that extra cash would go to paying employees a little better or giving them some extra benefits.
Right or not, the Democrats are thought of as the party of high taxes. If monied, middle-aged people are now voting Democrat at higher rates in this country, what that says to me is that "principal" is overtaking basic self-preservation, that is, the desire to preserve your own money from the government or anybody else.
If monied, middle-aged people are now voting Democrat at higher rates in this country, what that says to me is that "principal" is overtaking basic self-preservation, that is, the desire to preserve your own money from the government or anybody else.
Or, perhaps the definition of self-preservation has changed in response to changes in perceived risk.
No one in India is dying, or cares, because they don't have a fear **** addiction. you were supposed to compare CNNs gaslighting to India's own reporting; that was the point of my post.
India's death rate is 10x less than here in the US.
India has far greater population density, and is a disgusting third world county. We are being lied to to keep are scared.
If India's cases are on the rise, it's because they switched from HCQ/Ivermectin kits and got the vaccine. And that ended very well for their health minister...
you were supposed to compare CNNs gaslighting to India's own reporting;
I assume you mean CBS, which was the agency in the screen-cap?
Originally Posted by Braineack
that was the point of my post.
You often seem to be the only person who understands the point of your posts.
Originally Posted by Braineack
We are being lied to to keep are scared.
Fear is a great motivator. Fear of disease, fear of war, fear of brown people, fear of white people, fear of guns, fear of gun-grabbing, fear of witches, fear of religion and religious organizations, fear of the police and the courts, fear of chaos and anarchy, fear of elected leaders, fear of tyrants and despots, fear of censorship, fear of un-censored speech...
All powerful men throughout history have know this, and exploited it to their advantage.
Then there's fear of spiders. That one is completely rational and apolitical. Every man, woman and child has a natural right to be afraid of spiders. Those who are not are... suspect.
04-26-2021, 12:40 AM
0
