Many Republicans Want to Raise Taxes on Wealthy Americans
“Always click the link” — Kevin Drum
In his latest Op-ed Paul Krugman wrote ” Americans overwhelmingly believe that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes, and even Republicans are closely divided on the issue.”
I would have guessed that a majority of rank and file Republicans agree with all Republican presidential candidates who propose lower takes on the wealthy (while also being confident this isn’t a key issue to rank and file Republicans). So I clicked the link to a Pew Research poll write up written by Bruce Drake and found
Taxes
Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to say that they want to completely overhaul the U.S. tax system. Two-thirds (66%) of Republicans said in a February survey that the tax system should be completely changed, compared with 48% of Democrats. Among top complaints voiced by Republicans were that some corporations don’t pay their fair share (52%) and that some of the wealthy don’t, either (45%) – numbers substantially lower than among Democrats sharing those criticisms. About half of Republicans (53%) also said they are bothered “a lot” by the complexity of the tax system.
However, Republicans are more divided on whether they would support a candidate who wants to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. About three-in-ten (31%) Republicans said they would be more likely to back a candidate who wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, 34% said they would be less likely to support one, and 34% said it was not a factor, according to a September survey.
Yep they are divided. Look at that 31% of “Republican and Republican-leaning voters” say they would be more likely to back a candidate who wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Clearly either they are totally confused or this isn’t a key issue to them; otherwise they wouldn’t be Republican or Republican-leaning.
The overwhelming power money (and I suppose their personal ideology) has on Republican politicians is demonstrated by their fanatical devotion to tax cuts for the wealthy when their own supporters are as divided on the issue as divided can be.
On the other hand, I don’t have as high an opinion of the something else in the op-ed. Krugman correctly notes that economic performance is better under Democratic presidents, but he cites the famous but late Alan Blinder and Mark Watson who have “circulated” not published a paper, when he should have cited AngryBear Mike Kimel and co-author Michael Kanell who have written and published a book on the topic.
This shows an unfortunate aspect of the economics profession (and I’d guess all professions) the standing of authors is at least as important as evidence and logic.
On the other other hand, it is admirable that Krugman admits that he has (almost) no clue as to why the economy performs better under Democrats and doesn’t promise that the pattern will continue to hold.
The big question is, How do we define FAIR?
Can we take a generic definition of FAIR, and apply it to an escalating tax system?
Maybe we should begin to understand that the Republican party rank and file are of varying minds. There are the wealthier economic ideology Republicans who can always recognize the value of a tax cut, especially when its their taxes that are being cut. They probably are not too put off by the corporate tax scams that result in big tax savings for the corps. to the stock holders’ subsequent benefit.
Then there are the social issue Republicans, like the Dixiecrats that became Republicans when (I think it was Lee Atwater) recognized the great hold that such issues could have over such voters. And he may have foreseen that many of those social issue voters had short memories and generally paid little attention to the cause and effects of economic issues regardless of the abysmal effect on their personal economic self interests. They are a strange group. They want government off their backs except when it comes to enforcing their extreme forms of social conservatism. And they are blinded to the nuance of government off one’s back in the economy is like Jesse James without any sheriff around.
The old Dixiecrats are only one example of this kind of blind sided Republican. They’re all over the country and to many of them happiness is indeed a warm gun, even if it means that the Republican political class is using that love they hold for conservative social ideas to cover up the continuing destruction of their own economic positions. They seem to understand that they need Social Security and better quality health insurance, but they can’t seem to see through the fog of Republican Party rhetoric. There are socially conservative Democrats also, but the extreme examples of the ideology is drawn to the Republican fold. Maybe its out of fear. Maybe its bigotry. Maybe its just ignorance.
The economic conservative is generally wealthier and probably lives in a blue state. So they can have their cake and their meat and their whatever because they don’t sweat the social issues so much as their fellow rank and file Republicans who tend to be more rural and small townish and fearful of their government. They should fear their governments, the local and state governments that is. Gerrymandered to the extreme, those governments have never seen a socially beneficial idea that they wouldn’t cut. Their wealthy backers don’t need many of the social benefits that a government can provide. Enough wealth shields them from the disastrous activities of their political stooges. And often those wealthy supporters don’t even live in the locality or the state of the politicians that they support. Those Republicans benefit from the economic policies of their political beneficiaries. Social issues are only a means to their beneficial ends. They understand the differences between social ideologies and economic ideas. The economic conservative benefits from the latter by manipulating the former. Social conservatives don’t recognize the difference.
Let us not forget the democratics were in charge of house, senate, and white house when Bush II tax cuts were renewed.
Why do taxes have to be “fair”?