Yes, we liberals are truly unfair when we talk about rich people. They are probably the single most oppressed class of people in America.

Tsedek occasionally reminds us all that what we have in America is a socialist state. Some of us just haven't learned to accept that reality; some others acknowledge it, but have somehow convinced themselves that this is an awful state of affairs. (I refer to Tsedek, though I acknowledge his support for a flat tax)

The reason I have no problem with the progressive tax scheme is that the rich enjoy all the advantages of the socialist state they have helped create. They likely will not acknowledge this, of course. They will tell you that unregulated capitalism is our engine...and conveniently divert your attention when they need a bail-out from the Treasury.

That's the thing about rich people in this country: they love the idea of the meritocracy, but will abandon it like a hot potato the minute they have a problem. They sell it effectively by pointing out the widespread misery that will surely occur if they don't get some tax dollars to save their sorry asses.

This is why I kinda wish liberal Democrats wouldn't be so eager to support bailing out firms like Bear Stearns and the mortgage industry as a whole. I realize there are beleaguered victims of the subprime mess to think about, but the best way to get the rich to behave better is to make them sleep in the bed they created. There are always going to be poor people. Unfortunately, there are always going to be wealthy socialists posing as free market champions, too.

This year, during this election, with this economy.....

"Rich vs. Poor" will be a topic... and with so many forclosures, lay offs, people out of work, and financial troubles.

This is win win for Dems.

"tsedek occasionally reminds us all that what we have in America is a socialist state. Some of us just haven't learned to accept that reality;"

True. Families are socialist, it is a natural state of affairs. Where it becomes probablematic is when it crosses the line from greater good to merely rewarding sloth and ignorance, RS' desire with his rants attacking net worth.

"some others acknowledge it, but have somehow convinced themselves that this is an awful state of affairs. (I refer to tsedek, though I acknowledge his support for a flat tax)"

The flat tax is primarily seen as efficient, lacking any deductions or exemptions, and the only reasonable tool to restrain cancerous growth of government, which everyone wants as long as they don't have to pay for it. VooDoo economics wants people 30 years in the future to help pay for today's government largese, Gimmenomics wants the same people to help pay, plus shift more of the burden for the remainder from themselves to a particular minority, the rich. If we were seriously looking at raising everyone's taxes and balancing the budget, which would repeal the inflation taxes, I would happily support Clinton era rates on the rich.

do benifit most from the from the socialist system they helped create. It gives them cheap workers, maids, gardeners, etc., which pays for their health care, retirement, etc., without cost the rich liberals anything.

However, the trouble with the progressive taxes, it does not affect this liberal elite. They are already rich, and in this country, income, not wealth, is taxed. What it does do is keep those who wish to be rich from being so. The more you earn, the more you're penalized, the less incentive you have to be productive.

And I whole heartedly agree with your last statement. It is so very true that the wealthy socialist posing as free market champions will always be with us. Even more unfortunate, these rich liberals control the congress and are unlikely to buck the system. Seriously, consider, of the 10 wealthiest members of congress, only the two Republicans on the list, and Senators Kohl and Lautenberg are the only ones who earned their money.

KA

glad to see we agree with each other, to a point.

I prefer a Progressive Tax System...I just think there comes a point where Government takes TOO MUCH. Whether that TOO MUCH is from the Rich, the Poor, or the Middle Classes is irrelevant to me. I consider "taxation" a neccessary evil. Still, Government is a beast that is best kept on a tight leash, and it does NOT need to be overfed....

And I definately agree that the Rich should be as subject to taking the hits for their speculations and poor choices as anyone else. Certainly, just like a certain amount of welfare is needed for American citizens, there are times when government needs to bail out certain institutions. I would prefer, though, that as part of that bail out, the CEO's running the joint get a hefty fee levied against THEIR profits (yes, THEIR INCOMES) and are forced out...hey just as part of the Government bail out. If they do not want such 'conditions...' there is always the "fair market...'

However, the trouble with the progressive taxes, it does not affect this liberal elite. They are already rich, and in this country, income, not wealth, is taxed. What it does do is keep those who wish to be rich from being so. The more you earn, the more you're penalized, the less incentive you have to be productive.

So our progressive tax scheme is giving you less incentive to be rich? Okay. I don't believe you, but okay.

and I am in one of the top tax brackets. I am tired of the stereotype that liberals are working class. The working class has not as a block voted for liberal policies since the sixties. These are worn out stereotypes.

As for the free market, I am a big fan. We would not being bailing out the mortgage industries in my book and we would also be giving a chance to play to people who had no playing field before. Globalization has lifted a lot out of abject poverty and will hopefully continue to do so.

I understand it, and I understand where you are comming from.

For me, it is NOT the "progressive" tax system, but rather, an OVER-zealous government grabbing for more and more and more money.

Eventually, there is a point of diminishing returns.

The Rich will stay rich, but they may not put as much effort into getting RICHER if the additional wealth is almost completey siphoned off by the Government.

Instead, they will just go on vaction.

This goes with investments of capital, equipment, anything....

I know, that was offered up by Kal_Aline. It's one thing I really don't understand: you can tax somebody into being lazy and giving up their goal of being rich? I sincerely doubt it.

you might find this interesting, a Pew Research report for post 2004 elections:

<link>

it finds that liberals only comprise 17% of the populus, and contrary to the stereotype, liberals tend to be rich, highly educated urbanites. Working class tend to be more conservative but vote democrat because of union influence, or disaffected such that they don't become involved in politics.

Also, you might want to look up the "This American Life" archive on NPR. A couple of months back they had a show that related the mortgage crisis to globalization. Basically, as the third world, India, and China emerged economically, they looked for places to invest the money that was flowing into the countries. The best place for this money was the US real estate market. The more this new money asked for investment vehicles, the more the mortgage industry looked for new and creative ways to package loans. Very eye opening.

KA

"you can tax somebody into being lazy and giving up their goal of being rich? I sincerely doubt it."

More a matter of distorting things and requiring more layers of tax lawyers and accountants to avoid the taxes. There is always a way and our national representatives will happily slip a sentence or two into a bill to protect there own income. Another reason why I prefer flat taxes, whether SS, earnings, or corporate.

Kal, you say only 17% of Americans are liberal. Does that include these "activist government" folks described in your link?

The value gaps for the GOP are, perhaps surprisingly, greatest with respect to the role of government. The Republicans' bigger tent now includes more lower-income voters than it once did, and many of these voters favor an activist government to help working class people. Government regulation to protect the environment is an issue with particular potential to divide Republicans. On this issue, wide divisions exist both within the GOP and among right-of-center voters more generally.

Kal, I don't get the sweeping generalizations you make about liberals being only 17% of the American population. The total Democrat-oriented bloc in this country outnumbers Republicans by a healthy margin. And you need to take into account the liberals in the GOP to get a clear picture.

This poll didn't really tell us how many liberals and how many conservatives were in America. It really only told us how these various groups tend to vote.