Conservatives argue that as long as the system is fair and rules are equally applied to all, each and every citizen has an equal opportunity to pursue his or her happiness.
That’s why they support the flat-tax system, in which, regardless of income, everyone pays the same tax rate. They believe the flat-tax system is not only fair but also economically important, because the system allows the rich keep more money to grow business, supposedly translating into more jobs — a classic trickle-down economic argument.
The Democrats deem that despite this, in a free-market system, there will be winners and losers and rich and poor. In other words, no matter how perfect the system is, there will always be some who get more out of the system than others. Also, the equality gap is as much as the product of a political system. Therefore, helping bridge the gap is not only a compassionate gesture, but also a fair call.
Hence, they support the progressive income tax, a system that requires a person who earns higher income to pay a higher percentage in income taxes, as opposed to a single rate. Democrats also believe that the inheritance tax, another form of a progressive tax, is important to bridge the equality gap, as well as level the economic opportunity playing field.
Besides the above differences, Republicans and Democrats are miles apart on other issues, including regulation and big versus small government.
However, contrary to the popular perception, the ideology divide is not about regulation versus no regulation, small government versus large government, or higher taxes versus lower taxes — it’s about how these attributes apply to businesses and consumers.
While Republicans oppose regulations that protect consumer interests, they support those that favor the business enterprise, especially large corporations. They regard regulation to be a barrier to the free market system and an economic burden to businesses. And because they believe that, ultimately, the market takes care of everything, regulations are unwarranted.
Yet they want Congress to pass laws limiting product and malpractice liability awards against mega corporations, which puts less power in the hands of consumers, as well as wanting other economic benefits.
Regulations are essential interventions not only to keep businesses honest, but also to safeguard shareholder interest. Is there any doubt that if the Sarbanes-Oxley law was in place prior to 2001, Enron and Arthur Anderson would still be in business today? There are countless of other examples in which regulation has worked in the interest of a business as well as consumers.
Without regulations, the public would not be protected from breathing polluted air and drinking toxic water; neither would businesses be protected from frivolous lawsuits. Therefore, the disagreement is not about regulations or no regulations — nor should it be. It is about finding the right balance between the public interest and the interest business.
And although the “small government” issue has been a permanent fixture of the Republican mantra, especially during election cycles, they have done nothing to reduce the size of government, despite being at the helm of the presidency for 20 years in the past three decades. Once again, while they talk about small government, what they really mean is downsizing the agencies that protect the poor and vulnerable class — but not downsizing military spending, a significant portion of the federal budget and a handout to the military-industrial complex.
The Bush tax extension compromise law — recently signed by President Obama — is yet another misrepresentation of the tax-or-no-tax debate and the outdated trickle-down theory argument made by Republicans. The idea might have some validity in an old economy, when most goods consumed in the US were actually manufactured in the U.S. But in the global economic environment, in which the labor market is far detached from consumption, such arguments fall short of economic logic.
Even if the tax break granted to the rich invites investment, there is no assurance that the investment is going to create jobs in the U.S. instead of in China, Brazil or India.
• The writer is a finance consultant in Silicon Valley, now consulting for Cisco Systems, and president of the Tracy Democratic Club.
Dems are just now scratching their heads wondering why Americans would want to opt out of being forced to pay.
It's not the first time democrats heard it.
It's just the first time they heard what the American people have been telling them - from a federal judge.
Pretty much...
Citizens want there to be a basic safety net and don't want people who are less fortunate to lack access to adequate food, basic housing, medical care and at least a high school education.
Citizens object to waste and inefficiency in providing government services.
Citizens want enough regulation that the public is protected but not so much that unnecessary rules, or necessary rules that are imprudently applied, inhibit business or personal freedoms.
For some reason the people we elect to represent us in the circles of government can't seem to get this right. They don't get down to the task of finding workable compromises and solutions that move us closer to what most citizens want in their government.
Instead, they posture and grandstand and take rather silly positions (both on the left and the right) in order to stir support for themselves. Or, the do so in attempts to make members of the other party look bad.
It just seems like, if we stopped talking about the "Republicans" and the "Democrats" and started talking about solutions that the vast majority of us could feel good about ... talking in a constructive and civil way ... our political debate and the workings of our public institutions would be a lot more productive.
It was a trick question. You fell for it, but you didn't know the Democrats were really going for money out of OUR wallets and NOT Warrens wallet.
In fact, I saw Warrens wallet hanging on the wall at Bucks Restaurant in Woodside near Stanford with a picture of the. It said, "what would you do if you met the richest man in the world? Ask him for his wallet.
Why would you need a wallet when you aren't paying taxes anyway.
No, the Democrats can't even come close to that money.
They want the money from those of us who make $200k a year.
But they won't ever tell you that. So I thought I would.
Isn't Microsoft incorporated in another state so they can pay less taxes?
And Bill Gates paid taxes on what, like $80,000 dollars?
If the rest is in stock options doesn't that mean he's sitting on a pile of money?
I think the very rich know how to get out of paying taxes.
The problem with Democrats and millionaires telling others to pay more money so they don't have to.
What Democrats and millionaires are NOT saying is that the Democrats want to raise taxes of individuals that make $200,000 a year.
That's a hit for a family of two upper educated mom and pop working and filing jointly. The Democrats are essentially going after the FAMILY.
It will also affect small business men and women who are running a business and making close to $200k per year with a spouse pulling in the remainder of the $200k.
Sure, I think, Bill Gates can easily afford to pay more taxes on that $80,000 dollar salary. Maybe even without caching a single one of those Microsoft shares?
I have an idea. If the richy-rich wanted to they could pay more. Well, here's my suggestion.
To Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
WRITE ME A CHECK AND PAY MY TAXES!
May be Adhikari’s complex (LOL) cause and effect example didn’t go through your head. Just for the sake of the argument, why shouldn’t Bill Gates and Warren Buffet be taxed more? After all, their wealth has everything to do with our economic policy. And, even after paying taxes they are left with billions of dollars left, which they aren’t going to take to their graves. Gates and Buffet themselves recognize that that’s why not only they have committed their wealth to help human cause; they have also asked government to raise more tax on rich. If you were reading and listening to main stream media, you would have known that. I bet you are nowhere of being even a millionaire, and if billionaires themselves are telling the government to tax more, who are you and what expertise do you have to argue against it and think that’s not in the interest of the country?
Its seems to me, a lot of people want what other people have, but they don’t want to actually work for it. It’s much easier to throw tantrums and demand the “right” to share in what others have earned. Because of this outlook, most liberals bask in a perpetual state of imagined victim hood. Nothing is their own fault.
I do like this statement by Winston Churchill: "If you're not a liberal by 20, you have no heart. And if you're not a conservative by 40, you have no BRAIN. " I just wish some liberals would move to their socialist paradise in Cuba and leave the rest of us alone.
You really used some horrible examples. It would seem that the Democrats don't really live up to - what you believe is their core principle. Remember the rich pay more taxes.
So, if you wanted to bridge the gap between the rich and poor THEN you would have to raise the taxes that you charge the poor.
Do you want a CEO like Bill Gates to pay more taxes? Personally I would prefer he keep the money instead of giving it to government.
I actually think Bill and Linda Gates do a lot more (and better) with the way they spend their money than the Democrats in Congress would.
Look at the healthcare bill it's a mess. It's already being repealed because the Democrats in Congress attempted to ramrod ANYTHING through.
Not really a SHINY example of helping to "bridge the gap" because it will never even happen.
I'll be honest with you, I have come to believe the Democrats are only interested in making a show of pretending to "help".
When it comes to doing it right, I feel they don't really give a rip.
Look at the local Dems here in Tracy as an example. What have they ever done for Tracy? When was the last time a Dem got elected?
One person even wrote a letter about how they worked at the Dem booth in Tracy and got into a TIFF with someone at the yearly festival.
That's just another example of a Dem trying to make a show of "helping". But that type of bickering doesn't really help things.
I hope the Dems get a clue because I won't be back until they do.
HawkEyes2See – I am failing to see where you disagree with me. But I agree with you that neither Democrats nor Republicans have monopoly on truth or have a 100% right solution to country’s problem. And, if they take out rhetoric from the argument and actually talk to each other, they will far better serve the public’s interest.
MarkJ: First of all, my argument is not about guaranteeing anything to anyone. It’s all about cause and effect. In this case, cause is the system and effect is rich and poor. We as a society are collectively responsible for a system, which is by far the best system in the world, yet remains imperfect by creating poor class. The education subsidies, affordable healthcare, progressive taxation, and other social welfare protections are not only of moral and fairness issues, they are also important to either grow or strengthen the middle class, which is the backbone of the capitalistic economy.
Dale - On regulation, I am not arguing to add more regulations or regulate the heck out of the companies until they go out of business. All I am saying is that there has to be a right balance between company making profit and public health and environment and etc.
On defense, I disagree with you that our defense over spending throughout the cold war ultimately brought the mighty Soviet Empire. Such interpretation of history is not supported by Soviet Scholars, outside the handful of conservatives. Many historians believe that communist would have collapsed sooner or later because of their Gulag and “Animal farm” characteristics.
On taxation, I was not against extending the Bush tax. However, what I wanted to see was the targeted tax extension, mainly supporting small business and manufacturing so that we have some prospect of job growth. What we got instead is blanket extension, which in my opinion, will not particularly benefit small businesses or job creation.
To all my conservative friends – Neither do I believe Democrats are right all the time nor Republicans because the right and wrong are value judgment. Right can be wrong and wrong can be right, depending on one’s value. Therefore, we need to engage in cordial debates so that we can understand each other’s value better and hopefully find a common ground, as the system if our form of government requires moving forward
first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my friend, is the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
I'm neither Republican or Democrat but I disagree with your assesment.
I feel both sides probably want what's best and it behooves us to stop the pretense theat we're somehow better than another.
I feel that Americans should start looking for common ground instead of differences.
You wrote that a Democrat extended the Bush tax cuts? Does that support your position.
If we learn to reach across aisles it's less likely to drive a wedge in American politics.
Perhaps tv prez realized that a family with two working parents fits into that tax bracket.
And decided not to attack working class families, filing jointly. Working together.
Just some thoughts. Hope it helps.
Your statement, "...bridge the equality gap between the rich and the poor, whereas Democrats believe that not only is the role of a government to bridge such gaps, but bridging the gap is also necessary to expand the middle class, the fuel for the market’s economic engine..." needs closer scrutiny.
By looking at the economy, the results of income gap bridging have been... fairly disastrous, pretty disastrous, somewhat disastrous, an obvious disaster... what is the word I'm looking for... how about "not going" as well as expected.
Regulation is so stifling business, even the Stifler-in-Chief commented on it. Congress, in passing Sarbanes-Oxley, still does not have go to jail for failing to comply with any standards for competency and reporting by now invoking "The Rangle Rule".
The Social Security scheme leaves I.O.U.s for trust funds.
The Medicare scheme told people you have a right to medical care.
The ObamaCare scheme tells you get medical coverage or go to jail, the 1st time every American citizen is required to purchase a product while those unable to, receive it free. The original assumptions of Social Security and of Medicare are now exposed. Both are epic failures. Based upon the real numbers coming to light, ObamaCare will rival or exceed those failures.
"There are countless of other examples in which regulation has worked in the interest of a business as well as consumers."
Speaking of countless examples where "regulation has worked in the interest of a business as well as consumers", let's you and I sit down and I'll give you 4 times for each example you give me, based upon 1st hand experiences, of where regulations failed. We have more regulation than ever and we still cannot stop problems from arising.
"Once again, while they talk about small government, what they really mean is downsizing the agencies that protect the poor and vulnerable class — but not downsizing military spending, a significant portion of the federal budget and a handout to the military-industrial complex."
Maybe winning an arms race isn't the way to go but losing an arms race allowed for the NAZI's rise to power, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the issue of slavery to be resolved and so on.
"Even if the tax break granted to the rich invites investment, there is no assurance that the investment is going to create jobs in the U.S. instead of in China, Brazil or India."
My thought, since we need business, instead of forcing it to leave, we start creating opportunities for it to flourish.