EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Is the GOP the party of the rich?

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Apr 6 2016 8:24 PM
Many believe the republican parties policies favor the rich and trample the rest. This idea is all based on the premise that www.americanthinker.com put so nicely and seems to describe the Liberal Democrat view: "More government means more equality, while free market favors the rich and tramples the rest." What do you think?
Bifurcations
By Bifurcations | Apr 7 2016 2:55 AM
Bi0Hazard: I think this shows that their policies do tend to favour richer or middle class Americans before those who are working class or in poverty.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Republican_Party.htm#Welfare_+_Poverty
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Apr 7 2016 4:09 PM
Bifurcations: So you believe that free market capitalism tramples the poor and working class? The republican party supports more free market policies and believes that the economy is best if more is left to the free market rather than the government. So if the republican policies tend to favor richer Americans, does the free market favor the richer and trample the poor?
admin
By admin | Apr 7 2016 5:15 PM
Bi0Hazard: In my view - and I can't speak for Bifurcations - but that's exactly right. Free markets tend to favour those who can control them, and in economics, money is a form of power, for better or worse. I wouldn't say it tramples the poor inherently, but put together, free markets and greed (corporate or private) do.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bifurcations
By Bifurcations | Apr 7 2016 8:15 PM
Bi0Hazard: All I said is that from their own policies suggest they consider those who are wealthier first, all of those are separate issues and don't automatically relate to the free market. On the issue of the free market, it favours those with more buying power and more capital, so when someone is automatically born with a large amount of money and someone else is born poor, the free market works better for the person born rich and does nothing to assist the person born poor. Another problem that exacerbates the issue is the inflated wealth gap. This is just how much richer the few are (so billionaires) to the extreme poverty of many people. With the free market it is always drawn to large amounts of money and when it is billions of dollars verses literally nothing then those who are in poverty in America are never favoured by the free market.
cooldudebro
By cooldudebro | Apr 8 2016 7:52 AM
admin: I disagree.

Socialism and the fall of capitalism leads to low quality work and services. The Canadian health system is falling apart with waiting times for hours; and treatment wait for months. Now, people in Canada who want decent health care have to pay a lot more. It is only an option for the rich.

With capitalism, everyone has the chance to start a business, get a degree, start a business, choose which services they want, and let the market stay out of government control. Capitalism and free market it for both the rich and the poor.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Apr 8 2016 8:41 AM
In a true free market economy, anyone would have a chance to get rich. The reason why some people are rich in capitalism is because they contributed something to society which benefit others. In free market, inequality is derived from the personal choices of millions in the market process. Distribution of income is determined by beneficial market transactions between buyers and sellers. So, a business can fall apart if it displeases many.
admin
By admin | Apr 8 2016 9:59 AM
Bi0Hazard: @DHS15608 @cooldudebro I think you're both basically making the same point so I'll answer both of you at once.

So, in a free market, there are tons of things that can happen that are not personal choice. An obvious economic example is market structure. Over here, our national carrier airline ran a loss leader strategy in the local market for many years, to destroy local competition. There's nothing local airlines could have done to survive. Of course it brought our national carrier into financial trouble as well, but by the point they'd destroyed their competition, that was irrelevant. It doesn't mean local airlines displeased anyone, merely that they couldn't match the prices of a larger entity.

Similarly, I think people aren't always rich in a free market because they contributed something to others. A bank robber can still exist in a free market - so can somebody who inherits their wealth. Nor are all market transactions beneficial. Say a bunch of people invest in a factory that makes so much pollution it kills a bunch of other people. That's not a crazy example, it's happened before.

Take it from an entrepreneur in a country with flat business taxes. You can't get a degree in a free market unless you already have money. You can't start a business on zero capital because you have to live. You don't start from a platform of equal opportunity, you start with what you have.
Thumbs up from:
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Apr 8 2016 1:45 PM
Bi0Hazard: Their policies may favor the rich, but it isn't because the party is bought by the rich (that isn't to say corruption never happens within the Republican or Democratic Parties).
One principle held by the *really old* GOP is that anyone who is successful should have to earn it and never accept a handout. Before welfare existed, for most people (though not all, obviously) this was the case. It was a matter of values and morality. In today's GOP that sentiment still exists to a degree, but there is also the belief that free markets will eventually raise the standard of living for most people and that socialist policies which look good on the surface will stifle growth and actually make people worse off. One example is the minimum wage. While raising it sky high looks good on the surface, there are several potential side effects of this:
1. Outsourcing
2. A greater shift towards labor-saving machinery
3. Increased inability of young, inexperienced, unskilled people to get a job
4. Less incentive for people to start businesses because it's too much of a pain and less profitable than it used to be
As for welfare programs, it creates the possibility of many people abusing the system and "living off welfare" without working or hardly working. If most people in X country do this, then X country cannot survive in the long run. Plus, this creates a culture of immature, irresponsible "adults".
As for social security, well, it costs a trillion U.S. Dollars every YEAR. 'Nuff said.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Apr 8 2016 1:46 PM
Free stuff isn't just about economics. It can destroy the soul of the nation.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Apr 8 2016 3:27 PM
Dassault Papillon: In any nation, free stuff like welfare or government single-payer healthcare are not really free. They are paid for by taxing citizens. So if your receiving money from the government, it would actually be payed for by other peoples money. This means, it is not free. Just as if someone bought food for someone else and gave it to them doesn't make the food free. I am sure you already know all this, just saying it is inaccurate to call benefits like welfare "free". More of these benefits given to others like welfare or medicaid just go into citizens taxes. So your giving to the poor through your taxes.
admin
By admin | Apr 8 2016 4:51 PM
Dassault Papillon: I get into a lot of trouble whenever I say this, but I think unemployment is both a desirable outcome of market efficiency, as well as an undesirable outcome of market inefficiency. What's often missed is that the reason why we can have an efficient minimum wage and social security etc is because of our incredible technological progress as a species, such that we don't necessarily *have* to work in the same way that people used to. Our collective goal in technological progress is to reach a point where people don't have to work at all, but rather work is a matter of choice, and I see that as a good thing.

I'm willing to bet that for every dollar spent on social security in the USA, wealthy tax dodgers save at least two dollars.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Apr 9 2016 5:48 AM
admin: "I'm willing to bet that for every dollar spent on social security in the USA, wealthy tax dodgers save at least two dollars."
I would say that if what they have to pay in taxes constitutes a higher percentage of their wealth than what the poor have to pay (which is indeed the case under a progressive tax system) then tax dodging is justified.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Apr 9 2016 5:53 AM
The rich pay a good 80-90% of the wealth in the United States. Despite this, the roads that these taxes pay for are used equally by everyone. The military that these taxes pay for protect everyone the same way. Food Stamps go to the poor. Public Education goes to the Middle and Lower Classes (the rich pursue alternative forms of education for their kids). The rich do not need Social Security. Given all this, that we still complain about "corporate welfare" suggests an ungrateful, morally bankrupt culture.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Apr 9 2016 5:53 AM
Dassault Papillon: *pay for a good 80-90% of the taxes in the United States
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Apr 9 2016 8:11 AM
There is actually reason to believe lower taxes are better for making the rich pay more. Most will say an idea that cuts taxes on everyone including the rich, will favor the rich. However, this may not be true. According to stats I saw on fox news, history supposedly proves that cutting taxes on rich is a better way to get money out of them.

" In 1980, when the highest income tax rate was 70 percent, the richest 1 percent paid roughly 19 percent of the income tax.

In 2007, when the top tax rate was 35 percent, the tax share of the richest 1 percent was more than twice that amount.
"

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/25/sorry-mr-obama-here-why-raising-taxes-on-rich-wont-work.html

I am not sure how accurate this is, but if it is, then maybe we do not want a progressive tax unless we want more taxpayer dollars. This seems very hard to explain though since, how does taxing the rich at a higher rate make rich pay less of total taxes?
admin
By admin | Apr 9 2016 5:54 PM
Dassault Papillon: So your problem then is with free riders.

In that case, why aren't you donating to edeb8's patreon?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | Apr 9 2016 5:55 PM
Bi0Hazard: This only holds true if the tax system is full of loopholes. The better solution, usually, is to have a simple tax system with minimal loopholes so everyone pays a fair amount.
Thumbs up from:
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Apr 9 2016 6:23 PM
admin: That is probably the explanation. How would feel about a flax tax that changes for richer, like a tax rate at 10% then at incomes above $250,000 it becomes 20%?
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Apr 9 2016 6:26 PM
admin: My main problem is with richer avoiding taxes and then the weight gets shifted to others, such as the middle class. The rich should continue to have the highest share of the taxes out of all income groups.
Thumbs up from:
Page: 12Most Recent