Why do Rightists favor an ELITIST tax policy?

Question

The policies of the Bush Administration has been to reduce (eventually eliminate) the tax burden on UNEARNED Income (dividends, capital gains, inheritances). This transfers the tax burden to those who work for a living.

Is this fair? If anything should be tax-exempt, shouldn't it be what people WORK for?

I live off an Investment Portfolio. Bush has reduced my taxes, but I think it isn't fair. And when my parents die, I will become a millionaire. The GOP would let me get it all tax free. But it's the working stiffs who would be stuck with paying to keep America going.

This is an elitist tax policy. Why do Rightists support it, and talk a lot of pseudo-populist nonsense?

People who are against taxes as a general principle (especially for themselves!) have ZERO sense of community. Fine. Don't expect them to plow the snow from your road, then. Be snowed in.

Smelly: Please read more carefully. I am OPPOSING special privileges, not insisting on them.

Answer 1

You are right, the tax structure that you have described and that is favored by right wing conservatives creates increasingly dynastic wealth for the rich and unattainable progress for the poor. But then that's what they want isn't it?

Answer 2

The middle class will always feel the burden of taxes... Why ? Because we are too poor to be considered "rich" , so we put ourselves in debt to at least have some of what we consider luxuries.We are too "rich" to be considered "poor" so we pay more taxes than some.. Regardless of what the middle class considers a tax burden, the bottom line is the "rich" in the US pay 85% of all taxes... You act as if the unearned income you mention doesn't benefit the middle class , but it does...When it comes to capital gains , you don't agree that paying 5% leaves a lot more in a middle class pocket then paying out 25%.. Reducing the %rate, allows people to invest more and for longer without being penalized by a huge tax burden.How do you figure that getting rid of the inheritance tax doesn't take a huge burden off the middle class... Its kinda nice to know that everything I have worked for I can leave my children without the fear of them losing everything because the government wants what they consider their fair share. The way I look at it, I have already paid the taxes once , so why should the government be able to benefit by taxing twice?? Dividens are riskey, why should I have to pay more than even capitol gains.. Anytime the government lowers or removes taxs , we make money it may not be the amount the "rich" make but what the "rich" may consider chump change , the middle class may consider quite a chunk of change......... So I completley disagree with your view of what may or may not benefit me..

Answer 3

But the initial investment - the money RISKED - has already been taxed, quite sufficiently. Plus the earnings of the company from which the dividend or gain was received has also been taxed at some 40% or so. The monies that is left from an estate has also already been taxed.

So just because it transfers to another does not mean it has gone tax free.

Therefore, I disagree with your conclusion that it is elitist just because it prevents government from double-taxing these monies.

Answer 4

well the middle class (which i am a part of) gets screwed either way by BOTH parties.

what say you to this?

i'm all for helping people but you have to be careful as to how much tax you tax on someone. i live in a small town that is 50% retired folks who are mostly on a fixed income(their SS check). they can't afford to keep paying more and more because they are on a fixed income.

they aren't mean spirited they just can't afford more and more for stupid things. one example is that our high school needs some repairs to the tune of $100K. the building is 20 years old. they want a brand new school at a cost of 25 million - so sorry but i will fix the school before taking on a huge project we can't afford!

as for you saying nothing will be taxed - dream on buddy. the government will find you and tax you based on a percentage.

Answer 5

Well,

When we reduced the capital gains tax with Bush's reccomendations, the total revenue from the capital gains tax increased to the federal government. In other words, we reduced the level of taxation and increased revenue becuase more people were able to engage in capital gains transactions.

I have two problems with the way you write your question. The first is that revenue is a parabala, and the goal of a smart tax policy is to find the point of equilibrum of level of taxation versus revenue from taxation. The only major problem with your method is that you seem to think that the goal of the tax policy of the USA is to re-distribute wealth, instead of maximizing revenue.

The second problem is that you can always write a check to the US government if you do not think you are paying your fair share. There is nothing to prevent this from happening, so why are you so willing to place your hand and the hand of the government into the pockets of other people?

I agree with you that income tax shoud not be taxed. As a libertarian, I recognize that I own my body, and therefore I own my labor. Taxation of my labor to me is a form of slavery, wherein the government demands a cut of my labor before I consider my labor to be profitable. To me. a sales tax only policy is the only moral policy that will also be effective in revenue.

Answer 6

Why not a simple 10% flat tax on all income. Anything you make -- 10%, done. That seems fair...people who do business and make money benefit more from public infrastructure, so they will contribute more to it. It's not overly precise, but a 10% flat tax on all income is simple and effective.

A principal trust, however, should not be considered income since it was generated by past productivity, i.e. it should already have been taxed when it was generated. Any interest earned would be taxable income, though. Monetary gifts would be treated the same way. No earned dollar should ever be taxed twice.

Answer 7

short answer: greed

details appear to involve, as you suggest, pushing the tax burden onto people who benefit less [economically] from the US system of government, while favoring those who have benfitted enormously.

Interestingly, enough "buttons" were pushed in the camp of the religious of the fundamentalist-flavor to tip the electorate's voting patterns to gain support from this typically less-than upper-incom segment. This reperesents a chillling manipulation of the political machinery.

A coalition of Hillbilly science and golden parachutes.

But the favoring falls to, again as you suggest, those who are born into an advantaged situation ... and the sense of "community" falls onto morally bankrupt ears.

Answer 8

Its called supply side economics's it is tried by every repuglican president and it never has worked and has always resulted in a recession. Bush's economy is no exception. If it wasn't for deficit spending and the war we would be in a full fledged depression at this time.

Edit: People that do not want to pay these taxes are just greedy and will pay the final tax when they go to see their maker.

Answer 9

I work, I am just above the mean average national salary (which isn't much) and the tax cuts are very usedul for me. Once I make more money, and I invest in a corporation, why should that money be taxed 4 times?

Why should I pay taxes on land that I have lived on all my life and has been in my family for 100 years?

Answer 10

I'm conservative and I'm for almost no tax policy. Do away with almost every social program give me my money and I'll be happy.

I think it is a travesty that Bush's tax cuts increased the Revenue to the Government just gives them more to waste.