Why do are Liberals against the wealthy (read details before you answer)?

Question

I watch and read the news all the time, many different sources and I see the same thing. The liberals are against tax relief for the rich and they want the rich to pay more taxes and the poor to get more relief. Some of the poor even go as far as to blame the rich for their situation.

Consider this though! The majority of business are owned by the rich (of course right, nothing new there, otherwise they wouldn't be in business), thus creating jobs. If you reduce their profit margin, they cut jobs to make up for that. It is the rich that create the job market. I absolutely do not understand why so many people want to attach the very foundation that creates jobs in this country. Penalizing the rich only hurts the poor, it doesn't help them at all.

I meant attack, not attach.

Okay Bush Google whatever. So I didn't backspace, big deal. I was going to pose the question differently and forgot to delete 'are'. it's funny how people try to attack grammer yet don't answer the question. I wouldn't call what you said an answer at all.

Why are Liberals against the wealthy? Better for you???

Josh, there is no crime against being wealthy and many wealthy people do give portions of their money to excellent causes. You have every opportunity to be just like them. People like you who say the rich should not get richer are the same one's who sit on their lazy butt's and complain about how unfair it is. I don't have millions of dollars and I don't complain about how the rich get richer. That's the difference between you and I. You not procreating would be the best option here, don't get that twisted.

Yeah, Bush.

You did not answer the question. I said read details. You have nothing to say about what I wrote in the details. And yeah people will agree and disagree with me, yes, BUT at least they fully answer the question. I don't care who you are are what you are just answer the question FULLY. You just want to try and make yourself look good at the expense of me that's all. However, you make yourself look bad by contradicting yourself by saying you even answered the question. If I could put the whole question in the subject box I would but there is a character limitation. So next time ANSWER the FULL question. Thank You.

Answer 1

It's more rhetoric than anything else. 'Soak the rich' sells well with certain segments, and gets them votes. In reality, the Democrats recieve huge campaign contributions from wealthy individuals and big corporations - they know the burden will fall not on the genuinely rich, but on the middle class.

Answer 2

Against the wealthy?

Not quite accurate.

We're against the idea of the wealthy owning everything and the rest of us working 80 hour weeks, living in shacks, starving.

It is only fair that, instead of getting all the benefits from the government, and not paying taxes, that the people with most of the money should have to pay their fair share of taxes.

They should also have to pay their employees a living wage.

You aren't the first to express your thought, but what you fail to see is that, if they need to make 3,000% profits, while the people who do all the work starve, then they should do something else with their lives and let reasonable people run companies.

There ARE reasonable people who would actually pay their share of taxes, pay their employees living wages in return for their making the business possible, and still profit.

Basically what you're saying, when you say that not letting the rich own everything and pay no taxes hurts the poor is called "trickle down theory".

The idea being that they'll create more jobs, and spend their money, and that that benefits the poor.

The problem is, whenever that's been tried, it never actually trickles down.

What you get is what we see now (and have been seeing since the 80s): More and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people; the vast majority of people worse and worse off, working more and more hours, with less and less compensation.

You may wish to live in a society like the Feudal societies -- where 1% own everything, and everyone else starves, but no rational human being agrees with you.

When people at the top make tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for running their former companies into the ground, then the profit margin is in the hundreds of percents, when the middle class disappears, and almost everyone is worse off every year, that's just wrong.

Look at it this way, if they didn't have any employees, the company wouldn't be able to do whatever it does.

Tax relief for the rich?

They've been given tax cut after tax cut after tax cut. Yet they are subsadized up the wazoo, and basically own the government.

Some of the biggest companies get no-bid contracts, and no oversight, and steal us blind, while failing to provide the services we're paying them for.

While all the people who actually do all the work are barely able to live.

They lose their homes if someone in the family gets sick.

They have to work so many hours they never see their families.

That's what I call a sick system.

Profit, within reason.

Going back to the 14th century, not good.

Answer 3

I really don't think the liberals or anyone else are against the rich , if they earned that money that's fine, but when you look at these outrageous salaries paid to some of the nations CEO's, and the few dollars they actually pay in taxes, this is what people are against.
Take into consideration the recent retirement of one of the oil companies top generals, getting a retirement package of over $400 million, when they claim they are not making the money they should from gasoline, and how about the millions paid to the people in charge of the drug manufacturers. Then check to see what they actually pay in taxes, percentage as to what the middle class worker pays.
Business owners have to make a profit or they would not be in business, and I don't think that's what you mean.
Also, look at the fact of the results of Bush's tax cuts, they didn't help most middle class, but instead hurt them. When he made the enormous cuts for the wealthy, he cut spending for the states, and they in turn had to raise taxes on everyone, including the people on fixed income.

Answer 4

1: Equating tax breaks with "hating" is poor logic. Yes, I am a liberal and no I do not hate you if you have money. I understand (as I am sure many other liberals are, although I wouldn't try to speak for all of them) that the rich are part of what drives every economy.

2: What I can only assume you are referring to is the recent backlash against Reaganonomics and "trickle down" economics which states that if you allow higher earning business and people tax and other monetary breaks they will reinvest this wealth into the economy creating new jobs and economic development.

It is highly debated as to whether or not this works, and liberals - myself included - cite Bush II's policy's as evidence as such. Yes the DOW is higher than ever, but the disparity between the highest and lowest incomes has grown vastly. Recent reports suggest that the disparity between CEO's and their (even high level) employees is staggering and disconcerting.

Answer 5

Wrong. Corporations are granted an excess of help in the form of corporate welfare
Corporate welfare can be defined as pork-barrel spending, unjustified government subsidies, and unjustified tax breaks.
The estimates vary on how much pork, unjustified subsidies and tax breaks are really out there, but moderate estimates run from $100 to $150 billion a year.
Unjustified tax breaks are also welfare. Most companies pay taxes, and they receive a number of public goods and services in return. These include police and fire protection, national security, public roads, utilities, government economic data, publicly funded research and development, educated workers, etc. If a corporate lobbyist can win a $5,000 tax break, this means that the company is funding less of the government's goods and services, even though it's drawing on them just as heavily as before. In other words, society is carrying this company to a greater degree. Now, there may be good reasons for doing so; Uncle Sam may want to give tax breaks to the companies building the information superhighway, because of the enormous economic promise it holds. But most of the time, tax breaks are not given out for justified economic reasons like this. Essentially, any company with a lobbyist can bribe a tax break out of a member of Congress. Which means that the rest of society has to pick up the slack; they might as well be paying these "legal tax cheats" a welfare check.
Notice that subsidies and tax breaks are opposite sides of the same coin. No matter which a company receives, the effects are the same.
High tax rates are correlated with economic growth.
There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well.
Tax cuts enable the rich to pay more taxes because they make more; the poor pay less taxes because they make less.
Tax cuts on the rich increase income inequality, by giving the rich more money to make money. Although their individual tax bills fall, the number of rich people grow, and as a group they pay a larger share of all taxes paid. Unfortunately, this expanding group of newly rich people does not expand beyond the richest 1 percent -- which is too few to benefit most Americans. Furthermore, their increased share of the national income represents a decrease for the poor. In relative terms, the poor pay less taxes because they make less income. Only supply-siders would spin this as a success story for the poor.

Answer 6

That's some pure cold economic logic you got there.Economy however doesn't grow in nature,it's always man made even in a free market.
People should come before profit,anyone who works hard should be able to put food on the table.You can force the rich not to cut jobs if you want.
It is that simple.
Economy has become another buzz word.If a good economy means people suffer that good economy has no value to me

Answer 7

Consider this, most of these companies could well afford to pay their employees a decent living wage, but don't. The rich are already paying most of our tax dept, but so are the middle class. Is it easier to give 5% of a million dollars or 5% of 20, 000? The rich can well afford to pay more. Lets look at Costco for instance. they pay there employees a very good wage and provide health care for them. Costco has a good return on there investment. Walmart pays there employees terrible wages, no benifits and there return is out of this world.I think I'll shop at Costco, thank you very much.

Answer 8

Without the poor, the rich won't have anyone to work for their companies and make them rich. They complain that they pay too much in taxes, and ALSO complain about minimum wage...sounds kind of greedy, eh? Can't have it both ways. And no, they don't create the job market anymore than the workers do. I find it hard to stomach that a republican in MI decides to cut funding for higher education so that he and 21 other reps can go to the chamber of commerce and say they didnt raise taxes, no matter the cost. THIS is the same man who doesn;t offer to cut the police in his city, or pay back his subsides for going to a public university.

Answer 9

It is all about the "votes".

There will always more poor people than rich people. In order to win their votes, Libs need to come up with ideas like "soak th rich" or "make rich pay"! Such short-sighted ideas can usually won lots of people's vote.

After all, who doesn't like free stuff, especially if you are poor?

However, will Libs add more tax to the rich people after they are elected? Or, will poor people realize that they have been lied to like before? Will the middle class take the hit instead?

One thing for sure, if Hillary is elected, all the middle and lower classes will have to pay dearly. Heck, even she said it herself the other day.

Answer 10

Business owners try to make as much money as possible so even if you eliminate their taxes 100%, they will still only hire enough people to get the job done. So, if you tax them more, they 1) can afford it better than poor people and 2) wont eliminate jobs because they still need to have people to do the job.