Why I'll Never Vote Republican

[snakehead]

whenever I meet someone who is lower to middle income and a staunch republican, I am mystified. for the life of me, I can't figure out what they think the party has to offer them.

[andyfox]

The inequities of the tax code could be solved with or without a flat tax.

Republicans have always been against policies that help the least fortunate in our society, from the New Deal to the present day. Whether it was civil rights legislation or the minimum wage, or lowering the capital gains tax, their agenda has always been tilted towards tilting towards the better-off.

Andy,

All of your "benefits" of being not-poor are really just ways of reducing the amount of money that goes to Washington, D.C. The benefits to the poor are *real*.

This ultimately comes down to a difference in philosophy. If the government has first dibs on a certain fraction of your/my income, then any reduction in that tax payment is a benefit. However, if you/I have first dibs on our income, then we get no benefit from minimizing that amount.

BR

Snake,

Perhaps these people realize the immorality of extortion, and that interjecting a third party agent (gov't) does not change its fundamental nature.

BR

[andyfox]

Where is the exortion? Isn't our government of, by, and for the people? Aren't our laws made by our elected representatives? Why is an income tax more immoral, for example, than making people pay a fine if they run through a red light?

[HDPM]

Because the police power can be legitimately exercised, but there is no way to justify many of the government expenditures. Particularly those where money is taken from some and given to others, be they farmers, old people, indigents, corporations, whomever. (If I ever run for office here I support welfare for farmers. I'm on record. Really.)

[andyfox]

Good to see you here again, Ron.

You're the accountant, so bear with me if my numbers are a bit fuzzy here.

Let's consider a couple each of whom makes minimum wage. Here in Calif. right now, the minimum wage is $6.75/hour. This gives them a total income of $28,080 is they each work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year.

Using 2001 rates (I told you I'm not an accountant), I figure their income tax at $4,212 and their payroll tax at $1,740.96 for a total between the two of $5,952.96, roughly 21% of their income.

Let's compare this to a couple earning a nice income of $165,000. I figure their income tax at $23,908.98 and their payroll tax at $4,984.80 for a total between the two of $28,965.78, less than 18% of their income.

I assume the deductions change the picture somewhat, as whatever deductions allowed to the minimum wage couple are probably going to be a substantial portion of their income.

But isn't there something inherently unfair about this system, especially given the fact that the $165,000 couple will have advantages similar to those I listed in my initial post?

[andyfox]

"There is no way to justify many of the government expenditures"

Maybe some things I think are justified you wouldn't, and vice versa. Is spending for Star Wars justified? Reagan and Clinton thought so, and just the fact that they did is reason enough for me to think it's not. Any government spending that comes from taxes takes money from some people and gives it to others. If I don't drive, I don't need the traffic signals as much as someone who drives 4 hours a day.

[HDPM]

But defense is a proper government function and protects everybody. You don't let people with a shorter life expectancy pay less for defense, even though they benefit from it less. And roads are a proper government function IMO. But welfare isn't. Social Security isn't. The Vulcan statue in Alabama or whatever isn't. Education is not a proper function of the federal government except for military academies. Simply put, it is none of the governments business and not their problem if I have money, food, or medical care. It is their problem if we get attacked. Granted, I am just a little conservative on what I think the government ought to do. I also know that my view will never prevail in this country, but hopefully people who tend to agree with me can minimize the damage done by excessive government. I am waiting for a Republican president to suggest hacking whole agencies or departments. I doubt any will.

[andyfox]

The "IMO" is key. What exactly constitutes defense? Is Star Wars a legitimate defensive construct or a wasteful boondoggle gleaned from the deranged mind of Edward Teller?
Is a preemptive strike against Iraq necessary for the safety and security of the United States or an invasion with ulterior, primarily economic motives? The Japanese claimed Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike. I think education and Social Security and seeing that people who don't have food get it are indeed proper functions of the government.

[andyfox]

Patriotism, lower taxes and standing up for what they believe in. All fantasies.

[andyfox]

I guess the last four words of the post title come as no surprise to any of you, but thought I would do a little wiriting about the first word.

Last night I saw former attorney general Ed Meese on Hannity and Colmes. (Exciting life, I know.) Anyway, in the middle of an argument between Hannity (he's the liberal guy) and Meese (they were arguing about who could state more irrelevant platitudes in 30 seconds; I believe they finished in a dead heat), Meese said that the poor receive a disproportionate share of federal benefits.

Since the discussion/argument was about taxes, let's assume that Meese meant financial benefits.

Well now, I've been poor and I've been not poor and not poor is definitely better (duh!). The government definitely helps me a lot more now than when I was poor. When I was poor I couldn't take advantage of capital gains because I didn't have any. I couldn't defer any income because I needed it to pay bills and eat. I couldn't income average because nothin' from nothin' makes nothin' (or however that expression goes). I couldn't afford a good CPA to show me how to use the loopholes and write-offs to my advantage; I had to call the IRS for tax advice, which is a bit like getting ethics advice from Bill Clinton. I couldn't write off lunches and golf dates and Dodger tickets 'cause I didn't have 'em 'cause I couldn't afford 'em. I couldn't deduct the interest I paid on my mortgage because I couldn't afford to own. I paid payroll taxes on the first dollar and every dollar of my income; now I don't pay payroll taxes on over 90% of my income. I didn't have any unearned tax income credits because I didn't have any unearned income. I didn't have an IRA.

I could continue this list ad infinitum. There's no question we have policies for the benefit of the least well-off members of our society, but Meese's comment, for me, crystallized why I won't vote Republican. (BTW, I don't vote Democratic on the national level any more either, but that's a whole 'nother story.)

Republicans feel that the worse-off members of our society are a drain. They pretend that government has become a monster because of this. They pretend that the laws of the land, being drafted by the most privileged members of the society for the benefit of even more privileged members who give them the money that allows them to be privileged members, are drawn up in a virtual vacuum, where only altruism reigns.

See, I'm willing to overlook (or if not overlook, to accept) the inevitiable abuses that come with big government if the aim is something that aims to help those who need help. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it better. But nothing big works too efficiently, least of all government where there's no incentive to run things profitably. I remember as a kid the mayor of New York complaining that the subway was losing money. Well, so what? It's providing a needed service for the people. It should be seen as this first and foremost.

So the defense department paid too much for toilet seats. I'm more concerned with whether or not they're defending me. So there are a few criminals who get off because they weren't Mirandized or some other technicality. I'm more concerned with all our rights being protected. So we waste some money helping the poor. I'm more concerned with the money we waste helping the rich.

Trickle down is a bunch of crap. Meese and those who think like him know this, but pretend it's real. They're always aginst the little guy, in favor of the moneyed interests.

Anyway, the only thing that could get me to vote Republican would be an hour or so of listening to James Carville. Is there any more obnoxious talking head anywhere (with the exception of Anne Coulter)?

[B-Man]

When I was poor I couldn't take advantage of capital gains because I didn't have any. I couldn't defer any income because I needed it to pay bills and eat. I couldn't income average because nothin' from nothin' makes nothin' (or however that expression goes). I couldn't afford a good CPA to show me how to use the loopholes and write-offs to my advantage; I had to call the IRS for tax advice, which is a bit like getting ethics advice from Bill Clinton. I couldn't write off lunches and golf dates and Dodger tickets 'cause I didn't have 'em 'cause I couldn't afford 'em. I couldn't deduct the interest I paid on my mortgage because I couldn't afford to own. I paid payroll taxes on the first dollar and every dollar of my income; now I don't pay payroll taxes on over 90% of my income. I didn't have any unearned tax income credits because I didn't have any unearned income. I didn't have an IRA.

Wouldn't a flat tax solve a lot of these inequities? No more tax code, no more loopholes...

So there are a few criminals who get off because they weren't Mirandized or some other technicality. I'm more concerned with all our rights being protected.

The exclusionary rule is a horrible rule and does not promote justice. If the cops break the law, then punish the cops. Letting the criminal go because the cops screwed up is not an appropriate remedy; two wrongs don't make a right.

I'll let a republican respond to your other points (I am registered as an independent, though I've become much more conservative since 9/11), but I don't think the assertions you make are fair or accurately describe what republicans stand for.