Do you realize how little benefit you get from the Bush tax cut if you make 300K? It's about $2,500 - not what's driving their decision making.
So who was fighting for this to happen? Those who were making $30 million? Because the Republicans were prepared to go to war on this item, this and the estate tax. So somebody was very motivated.
You haven't yet realized that by now the tax cuts themselves have become the object? Sure, some people earning 15M pushed hard for the tax cuts, but most people like Buffett and Gates aren't desperate for a bit more pocket change.
Not sure what you mean by this. I recall Senator Kyl and Rep Cantor saying that the tax cuts would be extended to all incomes, and the estate tax whittled down, and that this was non-negotiable and that they wouldn't sign anything if those didn't get done. So again, somebody cared. Quite a bit.
The true believers care - even if they're not the ones making that money. You currently have an army of angry pitchfork wielding tea partiers who're calling for lower estate taxes. You think they're doing it because they're going to benefit? I can't wait for all the 50 year old Tea Partiers on disability to realize what Ryan's proposal means though. Should be fun.
The Tea Partiers are addicted to entitlement programs, and they are addicted to pushing politicians to cut entitlement programs. Not a recipe for stability.
Where the fack did I say "people making 250k just show up to the office to collect their paychecks"?! I'm just pointing out that simply increasing the amount of taxes taken out of someone's paycheck isn't going to translate into their invigorated participation in the democratic process. I interpreted Danny as saying, based also on a post from another thread, that if working people share more of the tax burden they will become more motivated to participate in government. As an example, I pointed to people working two shifts, struggling to stay afloat, with little to no spare time to participate in much of anything at all. Believe it or not, all anecdotes aside, they do exist.
I know this will come as a surprise, because it always seems to, but the wonderfully progressive societies that everybody seems to admire in western Europe all have much flatter tax structures than we do. They all have higher tax rates that kick in at lower thresholds. And yes, people still manage to be politically involved.
But in classic incoherent American fashion, those making $300K want to be just like those making $10M. And yet they also think they're "middle class" which outside of a few major cities, they certainly are not. Anyway, tax policy the past 30 years has focused much more on the very top tiers and not enough on the middle to upper middle. Prosperity should be shared across the board and it has not been. That's a disturbing development.
Apples to oranges, and I didn't bring up Europe. Just making an observation, based on my experience of the world I live in. I just don't think increasing someone's tax rate from 15% to 18% will make them 3% more motivated to participate in politics. I don't think that's the motivating factor.
I am in the oil business. I know a lot of rich people. By and large they work less. They vacation a lot. And work isn't work. It's calling to see how some investment is going. It's lunch with a guy who is building a mall in China. It's a family partnership meeting in Aruba. Every once in a while you meet a guy who has earned it. But that is VERY rare. 99 times out of 100, in the US somebody is rich because their daddy was rich. After working in this industry for 30 years I think estate tax should be 100%.
Making their total tax contribution go from $0 to $100 is enough to make some people vote. I didn't vote for 6 years after I turned 18. Now I write my senators on a regular basis. Can you guess where the turning point was?
In what way? More homogenous, sure, but besides maybe Luxemburg there's no EU country with a homogenous population.
I am in the oil business too. I know a lot of rich people. By and large they are the proverbial "first in, last out" that you hear about star athletes.
No, actually you made the dumb assertion that rich people are rich because they work harder, when in fact, the key determining factor in being rich is being born rich, as, for example, an OCED report referenced in this article shows: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
Depends on your physical attributes, training, what you had for breakfast, what shoes you're wearing and whether you have the time to go for a facking jog in the first place. So what's your point?
There is less social disparity in Europe. There is also less growth, less opportunity than here. America, f*ck yeah!
If by Europe you exclude Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Germany, and the PIIGS before the financial crisis, then your right! Oh and exclude Russia too. Congrats! Europe now means France, England, Scandinavia, and the Low Countries!
Who do you know that weighs their quality of life by checking the business pages for "growth"? I understand that you might imply more "growth" equals better quality of life for everyone, but does it actually, necessarily equate to that...? As for "less opportunity", I don't even know what you mean by that.