"Even if the voter accumulates a laundry list of cultural values from church-going to gun-control it should scarcely influence the voter when weighed against home defense, war and the economy."

I would have to differ with this. Millions of Americans when asked equate abortion with murder. You will disagree, but that is their gut-level belief. If murder was legalized, you'd have a very, very strong reaction, much more than economics, I bet.

It works both ways. I have known people that knew *zilch* about the economy and international politics, but felt that women's rights and gun control were hinge-issues on which rides the philisophical future of the nation. I think if you can look at anti-gun and pro-abortion activists and admit that their pet issues most influence their votes, you can see it in their polar opposites as well.

As for "should", who's to say? Many people I talk to either think the economy is over-handled, or beyond government control. Others think that regardless of our stance militarily the US will remain a strong nation.

I think the people you are talking about don't necessarily think those issues you cite are unimportant, I think they think that they are either under control or uncontrollable. Moral issues, on the other hand, usually come down to a black-and-white decision, and usually fall exactly across party lines.

No one votes their "concience" in terms of the economy or defense, they vote their intellects. Moralists and their opposition, on the other hand, feel obligated to make a difference on these issues, at an emotional level. "Render unto Caesar", ya know?

George Will recently wrote a relevant column. The money quote: "The economic problem, as understood during two centuries of industrialization, has been solved. We can reliably produce economic growth and have moderated business cycles. Hence many people, emancipated from material concerns, can pour political passions into other -- some would say higher -- concerns. These include the condition of the culture, as measured by such indexes as the content of popular culture, the agendas of public education and the prevalence of abortion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35560-2004Jul7.html

I think voting on one issue is wrong. I think you have to look at the whole picture. But I guess there are those who think someone's stance on one issue is a deal breaker and would lose their vote. I would say my biggest gripe is with uneducated voters who really do not make any effort to understand each politicians stance and make an educated vote. What irritates me is that someone who doesn't have a clue can cancel out my vote but that's how our system works. We can't give a test before we allow someone to vote.

Even if the voter accumulates a laundry list of cultural values from church-going to gun-control it should scarcely influence the voter when weighed against home defense, war and the economy.

I would agree that issues of warfare, national security, and national defense should be at the top of the list for national candidates, especially the President. If we're all dead everything else is irrelevent.

On the other hand, the question of whether fiscal issues are more important than social issues is a philosophical one. There are many people who consider morality more important than their pocketbook. Corrupt corporate executives are good examples of people who care alot about money and little to nothing about morals.

Kerry, for example, wants to rollback the tax cuts for the well-to-do so that he can prioritize the need for comprehensive health care. Obviously the majority of those making $200K or more, will oppose it

Most people in the top 1% of income among "individual" tax payers are business owners who reported business income. Many of those businesses are small businesses. Many (if not most) of the employed uninsured are employees of small businesses.

How exactly does a major tax increase on small businesses help them to provide better health coverage?

Tax foundation

Most people in the top 1% of income among "individual" tax payers are business owners who reported business income. Many of those businesses are small businesses.

It's actually rather more complicated...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A488-2004Feb23

"Economists say the broad Republican definition of "small-business man" includes not only doctors, lawyers and management consultants but also chief executives who earn $3,000 renting out their chalets in Aspen or report $10,000 in speaking fees. An aide on the Joint Economic Committee conceded that the definition includes the army of accountants and consultants at such giant partnerships as KPMG LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, not the firms that "small business" brings to mind.

If the definition is revised to stipulate that more than half a small-business person's income has to be from small-business activities, then only one-quarter of filers in the top income tax brackets would be considered entrepreneurs, said William G. Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution."

This (and other stuff in the article) suggests that most people in the top bracket are not people you would normally call "small business owners," and, further, most small business owners are not in the top tax bracket and would be untouched by Kerry tax hikes.

Corrupt corporate executives are good examples of people who care alot about money and little to nothing about morals.

  This is an inseparable matter of the economy--runaway greed and profiteering.

George Will's oxymoron suggests that since survival needs are fulfilled people can turn to things that matter least--cultural values. How does that sit with the Christian right?

200K of net income period--whether small business or CEO of a large company,or the bulk of unearned income.

 

No one votes their "concience" in terms of the economy or defense, they vote their intellects. Moralists and their opposition, on the other hand, feel obligated to make a difference on these issues, at an emotional level. "Render unto Caesar", ya know?

Apparently it is pure intellect that moves in the direction of concern for those that do without. This is hardly what Caesar had in mind. Nor is it a matter of conscience, but rather meddling, when one imposes his conscience on the moral conscience of another.

As I said, if they legalized murder, you would no doubt consider yourself authoritative enough to make your voice heard and try to overturn it.

To most people who oppose abortion, it is murder, the killing of a child. I don't think you can call it "meddling". Do you think, for instance, that people who are against the death penalty are "meddling"? Are we meddling to outlaw child molestation? Of course not. We take it on ourselves to protect others with laws all the time.

Anyway, Caesar didn't say that, Jesus did.

Obviously the majority of those making $200K or more, will oppose it — that’s only fair even though the rich know very well it is not a punishing tax hike inasmuch as the cut never should have been introduced in the first place in face of the ever-growing national debt.

Where exactly do you get off making such an assertion? Who decides what is or isn't a punishing tax hike? Instead of raising taxes, why not cut spending?

I suspect if the founding fathers were here today, they would be appalled that a) that the *federal* government has income taxes at all and that the federal goverment is "meddling" in things like health care.

I'm not opposed to income taxes, but raising taxes on those making $200k is effectively raising taxes on small businesses. MOST people who make over $200,000 are small businesses. Not big corporate executives. Not rich fat cats.  They're people whose businesses are S-corporations or LLCs.  When you raise their taxes you are effectively taking away their capital to hire more people.

Stardock needs 4 more IT people to help get these web projects moving.  That's WinCustomize, JoeUser, BrandedUniverse, DesktopGadgets, and a host of other sites we want to create.  4 more jobs.  But we just got hit with our federal taxes and 2 of those jobs just got wiped out. Is that good for America? I still need those 4 IT guys though, I guess I could outsource it to India... But if I do that, the same people who smugly argue that we need to have higher taxes will complain about out sourcing even though its the policies they favor that directly lead to it.

Well, since only a quarter of the people earning over $200,000 get the majority of their income from small business, it seems safe to say that most of the money gained from the tax hike won't come from small businesses.

And since just 3.8 percent of small business filers earn over $200,000, according to that article, it seems like this tax hike will hardly be devastating to--or even noticed by--"small business" as a whole.

These statistics, if true, point to Stardock being the exception, not the rule, in that it would be hit hard by a hypothetical Kerry tax hike.

Relink:
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A488-2004Feb23

I would guess that most small business (the vast majority that are unaffected by the tax hikes) would benefit from some extension of government health care, since it would mean paying less of the tab themselves. But I have to admit I'm not sufficiently familiar with the plans under consideration to be sure.

"Well, since only a quarter of the people earning over $200,000 get the majority of their income from small business, it seems safe to say that most of the money gained from the tax hike won't come from small businesses.'

Are big businesses entities unto themselves?

Oddly, all the big businesses I have been involved with have used small businesses as vendors. I know of small towns that do nothing but churn out parts that get moved on to large businesses. Look at the largest businesses in the US. Look at automotive manufacturers, technology companies. They don't function in a vacuum making all their parts in-house.

Make fun of trickle down economics all you like, but I guarantee that the cost of these tax hikes will trickle down, either in terms of cost or in terms of lost jobs. It will *certainly* not come out of the top-level profits.

Corrupt corporate executives are good examples of people who care alot about money and little to nothing about morals.

Why single out corporate executives? Do you not think that the mugger on the street cares more about money than morals?

all the big businesses I have been involved with have used small businesses as vendors.

Most big businesses are corporations, who aren't directly affected by a potential Kerry tax hike on income taxes. They're affected by the corporate tax rate. (Kerry's actually proposed a small cut in that rate, along with closing certain tax loopholes to pay for it.)

But more fundamentally, invoking the fundamental interconnectedness of all things in the economy isn't a good argument for any particular policy. It explains too much. I can make the parallel argument... government paying for health care puts more money in workers pockets, which increases demand, which yields increased sales for small businesses! Spending $50 billion on unnecessary highway projects is good for small business, since the construction workers will all patronize local restaurants, which are small businesses! Giving $200 to vincible is good for small business, because he needs a new bike and he'd probably get that at a small local store! Giving $200 to vincible is a corporate giveaway, since he'll spend it on a bike made by a large bike company! Giving $200 to vincible helps the working poor, since the bike he bought would be made by poor metalworkers! etc. Basically that argument can be made for, or against, anything. If you're going to make that argument and have it *mean* anything, it's got to be done quantitatively.

I guarantee that the cost of these tax hikes will trickle down, either in terms of cost or in terms of lost jobs. It will *certainly* not come out of the top-level profits.

Basic economics (I'm not going to write an essay on it here, but take my word for it) says that if you tax someone, they cannot pass all the tax along to others. (Except in very rare cases.) How much of the tax can be passed along depends on the type of tax, and on certain properties of the market in question--sometimes it's most, and sometimes it's almost none.

I'm sorry, this "take my word for it" argument is unconvincing, and arrogant as hell as well. But it really is true.

Draginol, you should go in hock and hire a tax consultant; he'll find plenty of writeoffs for you to forge ahead with entrpreneurial goals.

I'm thrilled that vincible chimed in with his reasonable position.

Vincible,  you should re-look at that link you provided.

Both the Democrats and Republicans in that article are messing with the statistics.  I have discussed this elsewhere at length so I'm not going to relook the IRS data but roughly 55% or so of individuals who earn $200,000 or more earn it as part of their net revenue via their S-corporations or LLCs.  My source wasn't some partisan lobby group.

Sure, Republicans claim it's 75% or something ridiculous like that and Democrats are claiming it's 3.8% which is equally absurd.

BTW, the reason why most businesses report that they make less than $50,000 is because they're having to play accounting games to keep at the 15% tax rate.  At $50,001 the rate goes to 25%.  This, btw, is only true for C corporations, not S-corps or LLCs (or DBAs for that matter).

But the article is making the same mistake many individuals not familiar in business make, they don't realize that with LLCs and S-corporations, which are the vast majority of businesses in the United States, net revenue is distributed amongst the partners of the company.

If you're a Democrat, you cynically take advantage of people's ignorance of the tax system and focus on C-corporations which is what they talked about in that article.

If you are a Republican, you can play around with the stats so that you count rich people who make any income from revenue from an LLC or S-corp.

The problem is that neither side is being particularly honest.  And because most people have little understanding of the tax system, they just take sides.

Vincible's points are true from his point of view but they rely too heavily on third party work and not from, what I can see, first hand knowledge.

It's not straight forward but businesses tend to fall in 4 classes: DBAs (doing business as), LLCs, S-corporations, and C corporations.

Let me give you an example of a DBA.  I was at an art fair today and we bought some stuff for the house from one of the little booths there. The people who sold us the stuff (some silk plant thingies my wife likes) are DBAs. They claim their income as part of their personal income. As a practical matter, they ARE a business.  But the Democrats in that article wouldn't count them because they aren't a C corporation.

An LLC is the next step up.  Stardock is going to buy a building shortly (pictures will be in an upcoming blog).  But from a liability point of view it's not a good idea for Stardock itself to "own" the building.  So I'll be creating a Wardell Property management LLC where Stardock will loan WPM the money to buy the building and then pay WPM rent.  WPM is a "business" that will earn revenue. But since it's an LLC it will count as part of my personal income and be taxed not as the business rates but at individual rates.  Is this a "business"? Not according to the Democrats in that article.

The next step from there is a S-corporation.  They have more provisions for stocks and partners than LLCs. Revenue is counted as income for the individual partners or as designated by the board. Again, not counted as a "business" by the Democrats.

And finally you have the C-corporation. This is what Democrats were counting. But they have their own tax rate which has nothing to do with this discussion. 

The Democrats mess with the "stats" by focusing on the C-corporations.  The Republicans mess with the stats by making people businesses that really aren't. They are cynically taking advantage of the subjective nature of what makes something a business.

I would ask kerry this: Who does he THINK the typical person making over $200k is? What do they envision their profile to be? There are only so many fortune 500 companies who can afford to pay executives >$200k.  There are only so many sports stars and hollywood celebreties making big bucks.  They're not the norm. 

Your typical person making $200k or more per year is some small business owner running an DBA or LLC or possibly, an S-corporation.  He may be the sole owner or more typically has 1 or 2 other partners. They have booths at fairs, they run office cleaning companies, They own a Burger King franchise, they run a laundry mat, they're a dentist, a doctor, auto parts store owner, consultant, run a law firm, own excavating companies.  Those are the guys who report $200k or more in net revenue each year.  They're the ones who get taxed more.  And they simply end up hiring fewer people as a result.