Tax and spend liberal

Bush has been making a lot of effort to go around calling Kerry a tax and spend liberal.

Just for the sake of discussion, what is so bad about that?

1. If Kerry is true to his word and reworks the tax rate for the top two percent, more power to him. It won't affect me.
   
   
2. Whats wrong with government spending? Every dollar that the government spends eventually winds up in the public pocket. That doesn't mean that the government should spend wastefully, it just means that there are a lot of valuable spending priorities out there.
   
   
3. Whats so bad about being a liberal. Conservatives had to coin the phrase "compasionate conservatism" just to co-opt one of the main features of liberalism, compasion. Being a liberal is not the same as being a socialist or a communist, just as being a conservative is not the same as being a facist or an imperialist.
   
   [edit on 15-10-2004 by HowardRoark]
   
   [edit on 15-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It won't affect me.

This is what I fight against.

Stealing from or taking away ANYONES rights ultimitly affect everyone.

Just because it doesnt affect you right then does not make it right.

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It won't affect me.

This is what I fight against.

Stealing from or taking away ANYONES rights ultimitly affect everyone.

Just because it doesnt affect you right then does not make it right.

So you advocate not paying taxes at all?

All we are talking about is rollling back the tax breaks to the upper 2 %. Are you in that bracket?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So you advocate not paying taxes at all?

All we are talking about is rollling back the tax breaks to the upper 2 %. Are you in that bracket?

More like the lower 2%.....LOL

I am a Libertarian and yes we advocate paying no taxes

Are you a Randian, HowardRoark? Nothing wrong with it. I dabbled in the belief myself, and have nothing but the upmost repsect for Rand, and her work, but with great strength, comes great responsibility.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

1. If Kerry is true to his word and reworks the tax rate for the top two percent, more power to him. It won't affect me.

Besides what has already been stated, there are several problems with this:
You can confiscate the entire wealth of the top two percent, and you won't make a dent in the daily requirements of our large government machine.

You will dis-incent the top achievers of our society.

You will create an us-versus-them class warfare system, which will cause mistrust between worker and manager, and ultimately result in the lowest level of productivity from any industry.

Whats wrong with government spending? Every dollar that the government spends eventually winds up in the public pocket.

The problem is that it takes two dollars of taxation to return one dollar to the public because of bueracratic overhead. Not a great model of efficiency.

Just a question: is your username a dig at the Fountainhead? I can't see Roark in your posts. I do see Toohey, however. No flame intended.

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It won't affect me.

This is what I fight against.

Stealing from or taking away ANYONES rights ultimitly affect everyone.

Just because it doesnt affect you right then does not make it right.

This is going to scare you but I agree with you. By the government taking from and giving to it is a wealth redistribution and that does affect me when I am trying to pay my bills and raise my family..

Damn we agree?

Originally posted by jsobecky

You can confiscate the entire wealth of the top two percent, and you won't make a dent in the daily requirements of our large government machine.

You will dis-incent the top achievers of our society.

Whats wrong with government spending? Every dollar that the government spends eventually winds up in the public pocket.

The problem is that it takes two dollars of taxation to return one dollar to the public because of bueracratic overhead. Not a great model of efficiency.

Excellent post m8, This is so true yet many are blinded by the soundbites of the democratic party and their wealth redistribution. Thanks

Why is it liberals name call people who they don't know, don't know if they make donations, help needy ect, but call them mean rich selfish people and thus need to be taxed.

Why do they do this?? Everybody works, everybody has a family to raise, everybody does the same thing in life, just goes about it differently ..

So how does wealth redistribution be justified if your not stereotyping?

If liberals are worried about the "disenfranchised" why don't they spend the rest of their lives volunteering and giving half their pay check to the people that need it so bad??

Stop being concerned about what the people do who make more then you, let them worry about themselves and you worry about yourself.

if the needy is such a big interest to the liberals help them out MORE, quit complaining about what you think other people need to be doing, and quit making them pay for it through their income...

What a bunch of loonies...

These conservatives cry and moan about paying taxes.. but I still wonder how else a government would raise revenue without them... What about the big bold strong patriot militiary to go stomping all over peoples countries.... whats going to fund that?

Yup, the conservatives have no problem with spending billions on a worthless nationalist military occupation of Iraq.. yet would start screaming when the govenrment gives a penny to someone who really truly needs it.

As a socialist I advocate the idea of helping our country and our people first. There is more than enough wealth in the USA to fund the things that need to be funded (besides military invasions)

Why is it that we have to waste so much money on providing aid to foreign countries when peoples basic needs go unmet here at home? Peoples basic life necessities could easily be met with alll this wasted money.

Imagine, better transit systems, better environmental cleanup plans, cleaener cities, starvation abolished, the end of unnecessary military invasions which destroy infastructure and peoples lives.

More and more people I meet on the street have very bitter resentments against the Iraq conflict.. many have daughters/sons that have been sent over there. You know, it's so easy to wave an American flag and say "BRING EM ON" when it's not your kid who is going on the front lines. Very easy for Mr Bush to say that as well.. you don't see his daughters heading out on the front lines.. because yes... the wealthy elite have special privilages.The town I live in is a working class town.. these people feel the hardships of loosing jobs to cheap foreign labor... they are beginning to seem to push a more socialist system even if they do not realize it.

In this world, always the wealthy elite have gotten themselves into political power. There is very little voice for the average working man.. I am looking to change that.. even if the elite fears that they could loose some of the massive power they hold over world politics.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
These conservatives cry and moan about paying taxes.. but I still wonder how else a government would raise revenue without them...

Imagine, better transit systems, better environmental cleanup plans, cleaener cities, starvation abolished, the end of unnecessary military invasions which destroy infastructure and peoples lives.

The town I live in is a working class town.. these people feel the hardships of loosing jobs to cheap foreign labor... they are beginning to seem to push a more socialist system even if they do not realize it.

RedOctober90
I don't think that you'll hear conservatives cry and moan about paying necessary taxes. I did read a post here from a Libertarian saying that he advocates paying no taxes. I cannot see how we can have the quality of life we enjoy without paying for some shared benefits, like our highway system, for example. Having a use-based tax system just won't cut it.

And this statement:

Yup, the conservatives have no problem with spending billions on a worthless nationalist military occupation of Iraq.. yet would start screaming when the govenrment gives a penny to someone who really truly needs it.

Is simply not true. I could give you countless examples.

I have read many of your posts, and I know that your intentions are good. I too come from a working-class city that has fallen behind the rest of the world, it seems. I agree with many of your ideas. I just don't see a way of getting there from here.

.
How about a CHARGE AND SPEND Spendthrift?.

Taxes put responsibility on THIS generation.
Deficits TAX your CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN.

Use the Plastic for plastic Republicans.

Never before has this nation had tax cuts in a time of war.

Unload todays so-called 'Patriotic' JOYRIDE at the expense of children and the unborn.

Honestly some of these war hawks are the same as alcoholics. Any war at any cost even if there is NO GOOD REASON for it.
They are war junkies that will do ANYTHING to get there fix.
.

Originally posted by RedOctober90
There is more than enough wealth in the USA to fund the things that need to be funded (besides military invasions)

Have you seen the nation debt number????

We're minus billions of dollars in the hole

Where do you expect to get this money from??? People's pockets and then re distribute it so everyvody gets a piece of the pie??

I guess you'd be taxing the middle upper class people who already carry the butt of the economy on their shoulder's??

Hey why not go all the way and start carrying the butts of the poor pitful me's of this country too...

On the top two percent.
Kerry keeps hammering on how he's gonna roll back the tax cut on the top two percent. Lets face it its a great political ploy, after all 98% of Americans wont care and wont be affected. Or will they?
We have all heard that the rich should "pay thier fair share" and that they money they save in taxes doesn't go into the economy. But is that really true?
Allow me to adress this issue from my own personal experience.
As some of you may know I am a venture capitalist. In other words I provide the first round funding for new companies to expand thier operations, and in some cases to take an idea from the theory to the practice stage.
All well and good you say but what does this have to do with taxation?
Well I'm glad you asked you see due to securities regulatons in the US the only American citizens who can take advantage of these types of investments are what are known as acredited investor's.

From sec.gov Accredited Investors

Under the Securities Act of 1933, a company that offers or sells its securities must register the securities with the SEC or find an exemption from the registration requirements. The Act provides companies with a number of exemptions. For some of the exemptions, such as rules 505 and 506 of Regulation D, a company may sell its securities to what are known as "accredited investors."

The federal securities laws define the term accredited investor in Rule 501 of Regulation D as:

1. a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company;

2. an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million;

3. a charitable organization, corporation, or partnership with assets exceeding $5 million;

4. a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities;

5. a business in which all the equity owners are accredited investors;

6. a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person�s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase;

7. a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year; or

8. a trust with assets in excess of $5 million, not formed to acquire the securities offered, whose purchases a sophisticated person makes.

In other words the same above 200K a year tax bracket that kerry is bashing.
Now why is this important to the presidential race?
Well in a nutshell its about jobs.
You see when my company invests ours and our clients (who if you remember are all either institutions, corporatons, or those making more than 200k) capital into a start up venture they use that money to do what?
Give yourself a gold star if you awnsered "hire people"
Thats right folks they hire employees They also have a tendancy to buy equipment thus allowing other companies to pay thier employees.
Now don't get me wrong investors don't do this out of charity, but to make a profit. But in attempting to make that profit they give a start up company the abillity to hire more people.
You see from anecdotal experience since the Bush tax cuts we have sen VC investments increase by better than 300%
Why?
Becuase those who qualify to make these investments have more money to invest.
Which means we have more money to invest for them.
Which means that the companies we fund have more money to hire employees.
Which means those employees have more money to spend.
In the last couple years, as a direct result of the tax cuts my company has funded 5 seperate start ups which are now employing over 300 people. These companies are still growing and still hiring. None of these companies could have gotten to this point without the money we invested. Money that was freed up as a direct result of the bush tax cuts.
You see legally and finacially the middle and lower economic tax brackets don't have the abillity to make this type of investment. Only the top two percent do.
Microsoft which employs thousands of people world wide was funded by venture capitalists like myself. All of that money came from the top 2%
The same with Yahoo, Ebay, Google, IBM, Dell, and almost every other major publicly traded corporation today. Virtually every major corporation today was originally funded by the top 2%.
Now if these tax cuts were rolled back would the level of fundng drop?
Yes it would.
If that happened what do you think would happen to the economy?
You see during times of high txation the top 2% doesn't pay higher taxes, they move thier money offshore. Which means that rather than enrichng the US economy it enriches the economy of Switzerland, Luxembourg, the cayman islands etc.
Instead of being invested in the US, in US companies with inovative ideas who employ US workers. It gets invested in The FTSE, the DAX, and the CAC, through foreign trusts, and shell corporations.
When taxes are lowered however, that money is invested in the US. Creating jobs, and enriching our economy.
So the question you have to ask yourself is, Where do you want the billions that the top 2% invest going? Europe, Asia, or do you want it being used to invest in companies here in America?
Do you want the top 2% to create jobs in Switzerland? Or St louis?
Do you want the top 2% to hide thier money in Luxembourg? Or to invest it in LA?


Finally remember this. Monies invested in the NASDAQ or the NYSE, doesn't go to the companies you invest in, it goes to the investor you are buying stock from. If you invest 1 million dollars in microsoft tomorrow, it wont create 1 job. Because that money doesn't go to microsoft. However when the top 2% invest in a small or start up company it creates hundreds if not thousands of jobs. Because that money actually goes to the company, and is used by the company.

Maybe the top 2% having more money to invest isn't such a bad thing for the middle class after all.

edited for spelling

[edit on 18-10-2004 by mwm1331]

Excellent post, mwm1331. Now could you reduce it to sound-bite size so that the average voter can digest it, and hopefully countermand the class-warfare, us-vs-them messages that have been spread by opponents of tax cuts?

Originally posted by jsobecky

Besides what has already been stated, there are several problems with this:
You can confiscate the entire wealth of the top two percent, and you won't make a dent in the daily requirements of our large government machine.

So in other words, what you are saying is that we all have to start paying more taxes?

Not that I have any problem with paying my fair share.

You will dis-incent the top achievers of our society.

Yeah right. I am not talking about a communist philosophy here, but damn, how many more millions does Oprah need!

These people are not motivated by profit alone.

You will create an us-versus-them class warfare system, which will cause mistrust between worker and manager, and ultimately result in the lowest level of productivity from any industry.

I thought that we had that already!

How is �compassionate conservatism� supposed to change this?

The problem is that it takes two dollars of taxation to return one dollar to the public because of bueracratic overhead. Not a great model of efficiency.

And what exactly is bureaucratic overhead? Salaries? Last time I checked, Government employees spend their money at Wal-mart, just like everyone else. Supplies? Who sells the government stuff? Private contractors.

I�ll grant you that it may not be the most efficient process for achieving a specific goal, but it could be argued that the government never really �loses� money. Every dollar taken in in taxes eventually winds up back in private hands.

Just a question: is your username a dig at the Fountainhead? I can't see Roark in your posts. I do see Toohey, however. No flame intended.

Actually it was intended to poke fun at the theory that the WTC towers were intentionally demolished.



It has been so long since I read the book that I really wasn�t thinking about the philosophy behind the characters.

Damn! I had a long scathing rebuttal to you, HowardRoark, and then when I hit the Post Reply box, I lost connection to ATS! Poof! It's all gone.

Obviously, it's the work of a tax and spend liberal.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Kerry keeps hammering on how he's gonna roll back the tax cut on the top two percent. Lets face it its a great political ploy, after all 98% of Americans wont care and wont be affected. Or will they?...

Brilliant post! I concur and agree 100%. Hopefully you won't get flamed by socialists who think that private industry of any kind is inherently wrong.

Irregardless of whether you tax the top 2% or the bottom 98%, we have bring in the revenues somehow.

No one likes high taxes. Yes, they can be a detriment. But, on the other hand, without the revenue, many essential services don�t get funded. Many quality of life issues suffer because the government is unable to enforce necessary laws and regulations.

Ultimately, we do have to figure out how to pay the piper, irregardless of who is in the oval office.

As for the effect of high tax rates on offshore investing, nearly half of the worlds assets and investments are held in offshore jurisdictions now. I find it hard to believe that a minor change in the tax rates will change that ratio much.

An interesting article on Kerry�s own problems with offshore investing.
www.boston.com...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by jsobecky

You can confiscate the entire wealth of the top two percent, and you won't make a dent in the daily requirements of our large government machine.

So in other words, what you are saying is that we all have to start paying more taxes?

Not that I have any problem with paying my fair share.

Never said that. Never did, and I don't believe we have to pay more taxes. My point was that you cannot solve a hundreds-of-trillions-of-dollars national debt problem by confiscating tens-of-billions-of-dollars from the top two percent.

You will dis-incent the top achievers of our society.

Yeah right. I am not talking about a communist philosophy here, but damn, how many more millions does Oprah need!

These people are not motivated by profit alone.

Thank goodness they are not motivated by profit alone. As far as how many millions Oprah needs, I don't know. You'll have to ask her. I do know that it is not my businees to tell her how much she needs. Do you think she needs your stamp of approval on how much she can earn?

You will create an us-versus-them class warfare system,

I thought that we had that already!

How is �compassionate conservatism� supposed to change this?

Unfortunately, that attitude does exist in certain segments of our society. It is nurtured by people like Kerry for the sole purpose of getting elected. It is a lie, but he doesn't care - he will say anything to get elected.

The problem is that it takes two dollars of taxation to return one dollar to the public because of bueracratic overhead. Not a great model of efficiency.

And what exactly is bureaucratic overhead? Salaries? Last time I checked, Government employees spend their money at Wal-mart, just like everyone else. Supplies? Who sells the government stuff? Private contractors.

Salaries, benefit, buildings, supplies, police and fire services, etc. And that is assuming that all this government is necessary to begin with. And even if they purchase all this stuff from private contracors, does what they provide back to society equal a net gain? No. All you are doing is recycling dollars. And if I have to buy a computer for a government clerk, that means I don't have the money to buy a computer for my small business. Does this make any sense to you?