Why I'll be voting for a Democrat

[sleigh]

Not in any particular order:

...Because I believe that religion should be kept firmly and completely separate from government and all governmental decisions.
...Because I believe that Science, not Mythology, should be taught in Science classes.
...Because I believe that Sex Ed means educating children about all aspects of sexual behavior, how to behave responsibly in that arena, and how avoid consequences for such.
...Because I believe that if two adults love each other and wish to marry, they should be able to do so, regardless of their genders
...Because I believe that a woman should have the right to choose.
...Because I believe that the Federal Budget should be balanced, and, hey, while the Republicans talk about that all the time, the only time it's actually happened in my lifetime has been under a Democratic president.
...Because I believe that our tax structure should be more fairly balanced (frankly, I [EDITED VERSION] once found the idea of a flat tax regardless of income level to be very interesting, but now I'm not so certain...).
...Because I believe that it's best to be talking to your enemies, not simply threatening them.
...Because I believe that it's better to have a Supreme Court who will err on the side of granting too many freedoms to citizens rather than curtailing those we have.
...Because I believe that oil is finite while wind and sun are not, and that drilling for more oil (and thus handing more profits to the already obscene profits of the oil companies) isn't the answer.
...Because I believe that the science (oops, there's that word again) on Global Climate Change is rather compelling, and that we need to act quickly to offset its effects.

I'm sure I'll think of other reasons, but those will do for the moment. With a Republican administration, exactly none of the above will likely be true.

What are your reasons for voting the way you'll vote?

Comments

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

Flat tax is the conservative holy grail.

I'm disappointed that the concerns of the extremely poor, disabled, and mentally ill seem to have become obsolete in American politics. When I was younger, there was dialogue about the poor, but now everyone seems to have noticed they don't vote.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I do find the idea of a flat tax worth considering, as I said. I don't know how the figures would add up, but it seems to me that if everyone, regardless of income, paid a simple percentage of income as tax, that it would be equitable for all. Maybe you can add a lower limit for income, below which you'd pay no tax at all -- but not an upper one. Don't know if it's the conservative Holy Grail or not (any mention of it was notably absent from the Republican platform), or whether it's more a libertarian idea. I just find it an interesting concept -- but don't know enough about the economics of it to know if in the end I could support the idea.

I'd agree with you that the poor are too often ignored -- though I would say that the Democrats seem to notice them more than the Republicans, at least in my opinion.

[madtruk.livejournal.com]

Hi Steve:

If your tax is 10%...

And you make 100,000 a year...You pay $10,000 and keep $90,000.
And you make 20,000 a year...you pay $2000 and keep $18,000.

The problem is, the person making $20,000 a year gets hurt much more by the 10% loss than the person making $100,000 a year.

This is why it is seen as 'regressive' rather than 'progressive.'

Trust me, I'm a trained professional...of course I'm a professional elementary teacher but... :).

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

Also, any flat tax ever proposed would reduce taxes on the rich and likely increase them on the poor. Most Flat Tax schemes propose 20-25%, but let's assume a flat tax level of 17%, the much-bandied about number of whatshisface's proposed Flat Tax plan:

The 2008 income tax brackets* put different percentages on different strata of income. Suppose you have a single person earning $50,000 taxable income (after deductions, etc). That's a solid middle- to upper-middle-class income, someone who can probably afford a decent car and maintain a good credit rating, but they don't take luxury cruises. The modest American Dream. Their federal income taxes for 2008:

(8,025 x .1) + (24,525 x .15) + (17,450 x .25) = $8,844 in taxes, or about 17.6%. That 17% flat tax helps a teensy bit.

Now let's look at someone who is earning only 30,000 taxable income (again, post-deductions). This is a common level for college grads in their first few years out of school, or someone with a modest clerical job. Now what numbers do we get for 2008?

(8,025 x .1) + (21,975 x .15) = $4,099, or just under 14% in taxes. Unless they get a thousand dollars in tax credits, they will be paying more taxes under a flat-tax scheme.

Last, let's look at someone who has $500,000 in taxable income. Rich, but not I-own-so-many-houses-I-can't-keep-count rich. We'll leave aside the point that most people in upper income brackets have more deductables (bigger mortgage deductions, etc.) than middle-class or poor people. What does this moderately wealthy person currently pay?

(8,025 x .1) + (24,525 x .15) + (46,300 x .25) + (87,500 x .28) + (193,150 x .33) + (142,300 x .35) = $154,101 in taxes, or just under 31%.

Well hol-lee fuck, NO WONDER all the rich people want a flat tax!

Also, please note that historically speaking, a 35% top tax bracket is pretty fucking low. Only 17 years out of the last 95 have been lower. Hell, 15 years out of the last 95 have had top brackets of more than 90 percent.

A flat tax sounds good and fair, but it's just a way to transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor. Don't let anyone give you crap about "fair share." Rich people benefit far more from tax spending than you or I. They need the police more (I have much less worth stealing). They generate more trash (because they can buy more, and dispose of it earlier in its lifetime).

Even businesses benefit more from tax spending, so don't believe the shit about corporate taxes. They need the infrastructure that brings their employees to them (whether well-maintained roads or mass transit) more than any individual benefits from them. (Notice how the roads in poor areas of town without offices have the most potholes?) And that's before we even address the tax spending that goes to build the office parks, and the offset rents to attract the business to the area.

Yeah, I feel kind of strongly about this. It only takes elementary-school level arithmetic to see that a flat tax is a big fat screw for anyone earning less than about $75,000 per year. And yet the current tax system is just confusing enough that those who would be hurt the most can't see how they're being conned.

*

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I think I need to "flip-flop" on this and say that when one does the math, a flat tax doesn't look very good at all.

See, I can learn! :-)

[cfgwebgeek.livejournal.com]

You just might want to flop back. Maybe. Perhaps.

I'd remind you that most flat tax proposals -- I'd say all, but there may be some floating about I've not seen -- contain *real* deductions from the Adjusted Gross Income, rather than the figleaf pretense of personal and other deductions we have now. I can't remember any of the specifics, and I'm way too tired to go surfing for them now, but they *greatly* exceed the current paltry $8,750/single. The point is to remove from the government's grasp not just what you (and your family, if any) need to survive, but to begin to thrive. (If the money never leaves your pocket, you won't need dependency-creating programs to put it back -- and there won't be a budget shortfall, because the government won't need to spend the money it now doesn't have to fund the programs you now don't need.)

Look at that $30k single again with a deduction of, say, $20k. Remember, though, that original $30k was itself post-deduction, so taxable income is now (at least) $18,750. 17% of that is (at least) $3,187.50. This makes after-tax income (at least) $35,562.50. The current ATI (see above) would be $34,651. Oops.

Of course, actual mileage will vary depending on where the non-taxable cutoffs are set and what the flat rate is. The best thing about a flat tax, though, is that it is *dis*-incentive free. Under a progressive tax, the marginal rate keeps going up on each additional dollar, making additional work marginally less and less attractive -- until, at some point, the Treasury gets no additional revenue because, well, most people *don't* like to work twice as hard for half as much. When the rate of return on your input never declines, though, you are far more likely to keep working for that next additional dollar -- and the Treasury will collect 17 cents every time you do.

This does not "transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor". By definition, the poor (those who have yet to "begin to thrive") will fall below the taxable threshold. And how's this for incentive: if you're receiving government "gift" (as opposed to earned) benefits and income you earn puts you over the threshold, you get to *keep* half the 83%! This retained fraction would decline over time, but should still clearly demonstrate the self-interest behind productive work and encourage the development of marketable skills.

Pad the threshold enough -- but just enough -- to make it obvious that those who do not "begin to thrive" at that level are not failing from lack of income, but from lack of competence to manage that income. Let a thousand charitable agencies bloom to offer assistance in learning those management skills. Let those agencies provide direct management if necessary as a last resort. Put an end to the myth that everyone who fails to thrive is being "kept down by the man!"

(I would make one deviation from the threshold rule, and I freely confess it may not be everyone's cuppa, but for what it's worth: Notwithstanding actual income, everyone who would otherwise be taxed will pay a $5 minimum tax. The government belongs to all the people, and *no* person should be under the misapprehension that there is a *right* [note that I did not say "need", which is why anyone is free to start a minimum tax charity fund] to do nothing but suck at its teat.)

In any case, I have a deep-seated aversion to the rationale for progressive taxation: You've got it, but my friends and I [think we] can put it to much better use, so we're going to take it, and if you object we'll knock you down and take more. In any other context, this would not be mistaken for anything but theft -- and the fact that you (not "you" you, of course) can convince a sufficient number of your fellow voters to be accessories before the fact does not make the pig any less ugly.

But, hey, I could be wrong...

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

And ooh! Toad the Wet Sprocket! They were a great band!

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I'll try to be a good student, then! :-)