Werthless wrote:Wealthy Democrats push for higher taxes because they think it results in a healthier society. Poor Republicans make the same choice/tradeoff when they support politicians who are pro-life.

Do you think that poor republicans would agree that they are making that trade off? Or do they think voting GOP will lead to a better economic position for they themselves?

Werthless wrote:My main point is that people make decisions on the candidates and causes they support beyond just how they affect their own pocketbook; social issues play a role, how "Presidential" a candidate looks is a factor, and yes, biases undoubtedly affect one's decisionmaking. It's just annoying when I hear or read, for the upteenth time, that poor people are stupid for voting Republican, yet the wealthy are "enlightened" when they decide to vote on social issues.

I can't say I've ever read that latter element, even the teenth time, much less the upteenth

are you reading the comments or something?

Werthless wrote: Wealthy Democrats push for higher taxes because they think it results in a healthier society. Poor Republicans make the same choice/tradeoff when they support politicians who are pro-life.

they what

oh and from what I can make of it, your tax thing is a non sequitur

Werthless wrote:Why is it noble when wealthy Democrats vote against their "economic interests," but stupidity when lower income Republicans "vote against their economic interests"? It's condescending and paternalistic to suggest that certain people have to vote on X issues and ignore Y issues, while others get to vote with their hearts.

You make a good point. I've never thought about it.

I think the assertion "when poor people vote against their economic interests they're stupid" proves my point about the progressive dismissiveness of what I'll continue to call heartland voters. However, I would like everyone to consider an alternative to deficient intelligence--when faced with a choice between people who have no conception of your values and or who openly express contempt for them and people who are probably lying to me but at least saying things that resonate with me, the liars win.

Howard Dean had it mostly right. And it's no mystery that under his leadership Democrats made real inroads in the heartland.

allentown wrote:WSJ just can't keep their story-line straight. One day all business taxes are paid by the customers, another day all business taxes are paid by the owners. I wouldn't mind seeing the corporate income tax reduced to something on the order of 15%. We could actually eliminate all the loopholes, so that business decisions aren't driven by tax considerations, and reduce the corporate income tax to 12.5%, and we would be revenue neutral, based upon last tax year. It would be a lot fairer, because corporations that just go about their business, without trying to game the system, would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage against the GE's of this world who staff a huge tax department as a profit center. Really, there is no tax cut that would increase our global competitiveness as much as the reduction of the corporate income tax. Then tax all income at the same rate for individuals.

I agree with your proposals.

The burden of a tax depends on the elasticities in that industry. Some taxes are passed to consumers (gas taxes), and some are eaten by businesses.

MoBettle wrote:

Werthless wrote:Wealthy Democrats push for higher taxes because they think it results in a healthier society. Poor Republicans make the same choice/tradeoff when they support politicians who are pro-life.

Do you think that poor republicans would agree that they are making that trade off? Or do they think voting GOP will lead to a better economic position for they themselves?

I do not know.

It also depends on the extent to which they use publicly paid for services whether it's a tradeoff at all. Republicans typically are going to cut taxes and services more than Democrats.

TenuredVulture wrote:I think the assertion "when poor people vote against their economic interests they're stupid" proves my point about the progressive dismissiveness of what I'll continue to call heartland voters. However, I would like everyone to consider an alternative to deficient intelligence--when faced with a choice between people who have no conception of your values and or who openly express contempt for them and people who are probably lying to me but at least saying things that resonate with me, the liars win.

Howard Dean had it mostly right. And it's no mystery that under his leadership Democrats made real inroads in the heartland.

I would agree. It was the responses to your post(s) that brought to mind my rant.

Here's the thing about lowering the corporate rate. The rate's currently 35%, but the average rate paid by large corporations (over $1M gross income per year) is like 18-20%. If you have no net income or a loss, you don't pay taxes and you can carry forward that loss to future years to offset future income and that lowers the effective tax rate as well. The rate may be the highest or 2nd highest in the world, but the actual effective corporate tax paid as a percentage of GDP is something like the 2nd lowest in the world.

The loopholes were all put into place becasue they seemed like a good idea at the time to promote whatever it was that their sponsors wanted to promote. You have to remember, tax policy in this country is often used to drive behavior, not the other way around. You want more domestic manufacturing? You add an accelerated deduction for domestic manufacturing expenses. You want more domestic R&D, you put in an R&D tax credit. You want companies to hire more unemployed workers? You put in a credit for hiring people who have been unemployed for at least 3 months. Stuff like that.

So in any discussion of eliminating loopholes, you need to really look at the nuts and bolts of what those loopholes are and what the policies behind them were. If that's not something you want to lose, you have to try to encourage that behavior some other way.

Yes, those loopholes add a lot of complexity to the system and getting rid of them would simplify things. That cuts compliance costs for businesses and reduces the need/payoff of hiring someone like me. That might be the only savings in all this.

Most tax proposals are revenue neutral these days, so lowering the rate and getting rid of loopholes does not necessarily lower anyone's tax paid. It may actually raise it for some companies depending on how much their behavior changes to take advantage of certain tax breaks.

Also, the 2 largest, most popular tax breaks are the manufacturing deduction and the R&D credit. If those 2 are not cut, I don't see what else can be cut to make 28% or 25% feasible given revenue neutrality. Maybe taxing more foreign income currently makes up for part of that revenue. (Werthless, I know you think this is a horrible idea and other countries don't tax the income from foreign subs of their domestic corporations, but any American multinational company with any decent tax planning isn't paying U.S. taxes on the profits of their foreign subs at all right now. The American tax system may seem more skewed against corporations doing business abroad than the tax systems of other countries, but in practice they operate much the same way. Trust me on that.)

TenuredVulture wrote: I would like everyone to consider an alternative to deficient intelligence--when faced with a choice between people who have no conception of your values and or who openly express contempt for them and people who are probably lying to me but at least saying things that resonate with me, the liars win.

well, I've considered it

And I have to tell you I consider it bullshit

here's how I read what you've written:

"It's condescending to suggest that people are easily gulled by politicians who whisper sweet cultural dogwhistles in their ears whilst picking their pockets.

Instead, it's probably that they just like the sound & fury better than hard truths that insult them, from people whose (admittedly often marginally) beneficial actions speak louder than their blunt, unflattering words". (edit: swapped s&f for "bread & circuses")

please explain how that POV is somehow less condescending

lethal wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Olympia Snowe isn't running for reelection. Oh dear.

Was she in danger of losing the primary to someone on her right? There was no way she was not going to beat a Democrat in Maine in the general election.

Alright lawyer dude, first you had a triple negative today, and now a double negative. I'm getting confused. And I confuse easy.

jeff2sf wrote:Alright lawyer dude, first you had a triple negative today, and now a double negative. I'm getting confused. And I confuse easy.

You're smarter than I am. You'll survive and adapt.

Well the double negative I understand, but a TRIPLE negative? What is this? Latin?

If they're reporting early votes before regular votes, Mitt is going to lose by more than a little bit

Romney wins Arizona at the close

Very solid

If not, I actually like these results for Mitt.

Polar Bear Phan wrote:If not, I actually like these results for Mitt.

Yes

Early exits have Mitt winning by three. Chuck Todd saying NBC's models showing it closer than that.

Rick Santorum is a dickface

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/02/28/ ... s-beliefs/

jerseyhoya wrote:

Polar Bear Phan wrote:If not, I actually like these results for Mitt.

Yes

Early exits have Mitt winning by three. Chuck Todd saying NBC's models showing it closer than that.

I'm basing it off the relatively low precincts reporting in Detroit and suburbs.

Mitt's 96.5% to win MI on Intrade.