Posted on 01/19/2015 7:33:18 AM PST by SeekAndFind
President Obama and his Democrat allies are back to their usual Eat the Rich strategy, one which will be on display at the State of the Union. Noah talked about this last night and left some interesting questions on the table.
Even though some of these tax increases will do the middle class no favors, it is not clear they will be rejected by a majority of the public. Pollsters increasingly find that the Democratic Partys message of economic populism is resonating with a public that has not seen their incomes increase in years.
This is a message which hasn’t been lost on the President’s team, as they are clearly moving forward full steam ahead.
Senior White House officials say President Obama will use his state of the union to float several new economic ideas, including tax hikes on capital gains and wealthy inheritances, and new fees on the largest financial firms to pay for more middle class-friendly tax credits and cuts.
The price tag to the wealthiest Americans and those large financial institutions? According to senior White House officials it could be $320 billion over 10 years.
The president will propose raising the capital gains rate to 28 percent, up from 15 percent, which is the maximum most taxpayers pay now.
Let’s just get one thing out of the way up front. This dog and pony show has zero to do with policy and everything to do with politics. Obama already knows that not one of these proposals will ever make it within smelling distance of the floor for a vote in either chamber. What’s being done here is essentially a hand-off of the baton to Hillary Clinton and all of the Democrat hopefuls with an eye toward the next election. This doesn’t make it a stupid idea for the President. He doesn’t need to jack up the tax rates to be successful. He just needs to make the Republicans refuse to jack up the tax rates.
This populist message is referred to as “populist” for a reason. People with less wealth are often hard pressed to resist feeling a bit of jealousy toward those who are more successful. Even if draining all the wealth from the wealthy won’t make any significant difference in their own lives, there is a nasty siren call associated with the idea of taking the fat cats down a peg or two.
This is a message which can be countered, but only if it’s done intelligently. If there is one thing which is more powerful than jealousy, it’s aspiration. As far as the working class goes, they almost universally have one thing in common; they aspire to reach a higher, more comfortable status themselves. Traditionally we saw Americans who didn’t hate or even envy the rich to a great degree. They looked at that big house in the more expensive part of town and didn’t want to burn it down… they wanted a house like that for themselves. And if they did manage to make it up near the top of the ladder they certainly didn’t want a 75% tax rate bill waiting for them when they arrived.
The problem is that the worse off the middle class is and the lower their confidence that they can actually make it successfully, the less inclined they may be to protect the accomplishments of the high achievers. In darker times like that, the populist “tax the rich” message can burrow in far more deeply to the national psyche. In this way, an impoverished, despondent middle class actually works to the benefit of the Democrats. With that in mind, Republican candidates need to ensure they stick with a positive, hopeful message on domestic issues, even as they leverage their current advantage over the Democrats on foreign policy.
Continue to pass conservative, restorative legislation.
File articles of impeachment.
But the z0mbie proof 0b0ts only can see what's been promised to be placed in their hand, not the pit they are marching towards.
RE: Eat the rich = Live in Mogadishu’
You don’t have to, just go to Minnesota...
Obama started his Presidency with a million Middle Class speeches , is he going to end it the same way ?
District 9
They fight it by explaining that it’s not “tax the rich”...
The dems want to further tax the hard-working, productive, successful members of society; the people who open new businesses, expand existing businesses, pay the bulk of the taxes already and create vast numbers of jobs in the process. The GOP needs to hammer these points.
The GOP also needs to explain how other countries with fewer taxes and regulations lure away American jobs.
If the GOP can’t explain these concepts, then they lose.
What we have is essentially a problem of psychology, not economics.
Most average people on the street are still some combination of angry/bitter that not only was no one on Wall Street held accountable for the ‘09 debacle, but all the rest of us were called upon to bail them out with our tax money.
Thus promising to send a few of them to the woodshed holds enormous appeal. (GOP take note....holding a few of these guys accountable when they really DO transgress will give you tremendously more street cred to fight this in the future)
People’s wages have been essentially stagnant over a decade. Yet the news is filled with stories about soaring corporate profits. The typical psychological reaction, for better or worse, is “those cheap bastards are SCROOOOOING me!” And once again, the Big Government advocate who comes along promising to whack them with the Big Stick will find a willing audience.
“I want a raise. Even if I have to elect someone to FORCE you to give me a raise.” Pure sophistry, but don’t underestimate its power.
And to the economically untrained, there is absolutely no reason why capital gains should be taxed at any rate lower than “those of us who actually EARNED it.”
I know those of you who understand economics are pulling your hair out by now....but this is how it works with the vast majority of people.
Bad news.
Whether or not Obama gets to rob the productive sectors of the economy (again), this is what Fauxchahontas will be running on in 2016.
Democrats: Masters of the politics of envy and division.
Taxes on the rich - on businessmen and capitalists - are an assault on capital, savings and investment which cause:
(1) lower demand for capital goods relative to consumers' goods and
(2) reduced incentive to improve production and
(3) lower demand for labor
The result of conditions of (1) and (2) is lower productivity of labor, which leads to lower real wage rates for the average worker.
The result of condition (3) is lower money wage rates for the average worker.
Thus, taxes on the rich are overwhelmingly borne by the average wage earners in the form of both lower real wage rates and lower money wage rates. So, if one wants to destroy the average standard of living of wage earners, and increase the inequality between the rich and the middle class, then increasing taxes is the way to go.
The truth is that wage earners always end up bearing the major burden of taxes. They bear the burden whether the taxes are levied on them directly in the form of consumption taxes, sales taxes, or income taxes, or they are levied on businessmen and capitalists in the form of confiscatory taxes on profits, inheritances, income, or a tax on the product. These taxes reduce wage earners' spendable income if it takes the form of an additional income tax they must pay. It reduces their buying power of their incomes if it as an additional sales tax. And, it reduces the demand for labor, and thus the wage earners' pretax incomes, if it is an additional tax in the rich. The wage earner simply cannot escape the burden of the tax no matter how much liberals, who hate the good for being the good and have a resentment against achievement want to punish the rich.
This is a ridiculous question. The assumption is that the GOPe has any desire to "fight" Obama's tax proposals. If they did want to fight for the middle class it would be easy. Long ago they could have said, no more illegals. Do your job, Mr. President, build that fence, defend US sovereignty, and treat the invaders appropriately. Absolutely no social security or tax benefits for anyone in this country illegally. They could have repealed the largest tax burden Obama has placed on US citizens and defunded Obamacare. Since they haven't done any of this, I believe it is futile to imagine them wanting to "fight" Obama on anything.
Tell the truth is how. You think the rich or business owners are going to reach in to their own pockets? Nope.
At the heart of socialism is the conflation of society and government. Leftists know that society sounds much nicer than government, and they compulsively use that euphemism, but Thomas Paine shows clearly that that is a fallacy:Milton Friedman liked to use the free market example that nobody knows how to make a pencil. But he was not the originator of the example, which comes from the articleCommon Sense
by Thomas Paine (1776)
Of the Origin and Design of Government in General,
with Concise Remarks on the English ConstitutionSOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
I, Pencilby Leonard E. Read. (1958). The article is long, but is a classic. I cite it because it makes the point that while the Eberhard Faber Pencil Company makes the pencil, the provenance of whose components is described in the article, those inputs themselves have such diverse inputs that the truth of the matter - in my words - is that society makes the pencil. Not government, mind, but society.
As far as I can tell, the “rich” have been supporting the Democrats. Let their friends tax them to kingdom come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.