Why are Republicans so Anti-Capitalist?

I love most of my Republican friends, but I wish more of them believed in capitalism. Sadly, too many of them prefer to reject capitalism in favor of a kleptocracy.  Why do they hate America so much?

I also wish my Republican friends were as patriotic as I am. Unfortunately, too many of them are part of the “rich America first” crowd.

I was re-reading my good friend Adam Smith’s book “Wealth of Nations” today and stumbled upon a fairly important passage:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Gosh, that last sentence sure does seem to make sense, doesn’t it?  The rich should contribute to the public expense in greater proportion to their revenue than the non-rich. It’s almost like Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and the man who created modern capitalism – wants to spread your wealth around.

I bet Adam Smith would be a democrat today. He seems like a good guy.

Oh, and for the record – Republicans – stop telling me that Ireland’s business taxes are among the lowest in the world. If you continue to advocate for the Irish system of governance and taxation, I’m eventually going to hold you to it. This means high income taxes, government-sponsored health care as a result of individual taxation, and a graduated business tax that puts the highest burden on small businesses. Sounds great to me!


21 responses to “Why are Republicans so Anti-Capitalist?

  1. Its capital gains, not “business taxes” which businesses don’t pay by the way, they just raise their prices.

    Keep feeding people that class warfare crap, I don’t care what Adam Smith says (or said rather). Spreading the wealth doesn’t create jobs.

    If you can prove to me how spreading the wealth creates jobs than I will give you the credit for it, but it doesn’t.

    The economy is not just about everybody having money, its about creating job so “wealth” is then in turn spread to more people. Its trickle down, not trickle up.

    The rich get richer, the middle class get richer, and the lower class get POORER. But the fact is the poor get poorer because they are doing the same things that got them poor to begin with.

    There is no perfect economic system, but a spread the wealth system is proven to be the farthest away from one.

  2. Your wonderful Democrat party admits whenever they create a “stimulus” package that the key is lower taxes. Why is a stimulus okay? What does it accomplish? The goal is to put money that the government normally takes away from you, and puts it back into your pocket because YOU earned it. It wasn’t something somebody else earned, it was your money that they are giving back.

    The Democrat Party wants you to continue to rely on them. They won’t say tax cut, they have to say stimulus because they know half the American ignorant out there don’t realize what it really is. It is, in most cases, a temporary tax cut. When they take all of your money and they realize some has to be given back, they disguise the name. Because they don’t want you to think “oh I’m getting my money back” they want it to be “oh the government is giving me relief”.

    Pelosi-Reid-Obama administration would be hell bent on raising your taxes. Taking your money. And its interesting how that number continues to fall… no one below 250k, no one below 200k, now its no one below 150k. Jimmy Carter pulled the same crap, LBJ, they all did it. And it wrecked the economy.

    Instead of reading Adam Smith, why don’t you read from someone who the Democrats claim to be their idol, JFK. He believed in less government. He believed that lower taxes stimulated economic growth. In these days JFK would be a hard line republican.

  3. J Stat,

    Good mention of JFK. He actually started a whole new era in the study of economics. His ideas challenged the old ideas and were basis of modern day economic theory.

    About every 2 decades you need to completely replace the economic models, otherwise you get the effect that LBJ and Carter gave us, applying old ideas to new economic challenges with horrible results.

    Why are we in the shape that we are in… too many people fail to acknowlege that we have to scrap the standard economic models of yesterday and look at it with new eyes.

  4. J Stat:

    Obama’s arbitrary cut-off for raising or lowering income taxes has not changed. It is $200K or single and $250K for married. Biden misspoke as he is prone to do on the $150K.

    You need to add some granularity to your arguments when discussing business taxes. Corporate taxes are paid almost exclusively by very large corporations. Most small businesses are set up as an income pass-through (S-Corps, LLCs, etc). This means that net incomes passes from the business to the owner’s personal 1040 with no business entity tax. Most small businesses will declare a “reasonable owner’s salary” — the IRS seems happy with about $40K — and on that amount pay both sides of FICA and Medicare or 7.65% for each the employee and employer. The rest of the net income is paid in dividends (no double taxation unless you are a “C-Corp”). The current rate on dividends is 15%. So a middle class worker will pay more in taxes on say $80K in wages — W-2 income taxes plys payroll taxes — than a business owner –$40K income tax and payroll tax plus the rest at only 15%. Often by not claiming some of their revenues, see below, a business can shelter other 1040 income with a net loss from the business. This is our Republican version of spreading the wealth in favor of those who hire others and away from wage earners.

    You may also want to examine the billions of dollars on which small businesses pay no federal tax. Notice, the next time you go to a cash restaurant (Chinese, Mexican, etc) what type of cash register they use. Chances are good that there will be no long-term record of the days receipts. The credit cards are traceable but cash is not. Sometimes the cash flows directly from our hands overseas with zero federal tax paid. Ditto for other invoices paid in cash. Pay Joe the Plummer’s boss in cash rather than a check and it probably will never get taxed. Makes you want to consider a national sales tax and scrap the rest.

  5. Actually Obama began saying those making under 300k, and thats the point that those who hire people are going to pay less in taxes. Businesses do not pay taxes. If your going to force them to pay them, they will raise their prices. So your better off just easing their taxes so that through competition they keep prices low. I’m not saying I’m in favor of hiring workers overseas, I think there should be some kind of reward for hiring workers here.

    I’m all for the Fair Tax.

  6. J Stat: You are once again showing your lack of understanding of the factors involved in poverty. The poor are not always poor because “they are doing the same things that got them poor to begin with.”

  7. Yeah, not always. I didn’t say always. But a majority of them are. My uncle made under 30k a year all throughout the Clinton years, and it took until BUSH for him to finally achieve “The American Dream”. He now is one of the wealthy Obama wants to punish.

  8. JStat: I know you’ll be shocked, but I disagree with you again. I work with kids below the poverty line and the majority of their parents are not there because of their choices. Most of them fight hard to give their kids a better life and have lost ground in the Bush years.

  9. Haha, I am blown away you would disagree with me.

    Look heres the deal, I look at the data, and from what I see, the Bush years have produced a stronger middle class and more people above the poverty line. Those that are below the line, are truely struggling. However, and I do not mean this cynical, in a perfect world we would all be above it, but I would rather it be more above the poverty line than less.

  10. Another thing… raising taxes on ANYBODY has never improved the economy. Never.

  11. J Stat — wrong on taxes. Clinton raised tases, 4.3 cents per gallon and increased taxes on better off SS recipients and the economy did get better. Bush lowered taxes and the economy got worse. The explanation, in part, is the interest drag on the national debt. We currently pay almost $300B in interest a year. Our country is acting like a consumer maxing out the credit cards only to find the interest charges are killing them. Also wrong on stronger middle class under Bush at least according to IRS data.

  12. Nope, wrong Moderate.

    There was no economic growth until the Republicans forced Clinton to drop taxes, and he still created a recession in 2000.

    By the way, the economy has grown since the Bush tax cuts. So I assume your basing all of this off of national debt.

    The government is getting more revenue than it was in the 90’s. Unemployment went down with the tax cuts. Unemployment is lower than when Clinton left office also.

    I never claimed Bush was a good president, but his tax cut stimulated economic growth. Its a fact. Now if your going to fight him on spending, go ahead. He failed to cut spending.

    But raising taxes creates less revenue. (waits for your damn laugher curve reference)

    Bush and the Republicans failed because they wouldn’t cut spending, or even spent more.

  13. Sorry JStat, but YOU are wrong (at least on unemployment). When Clinton left office in January, 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%. As of September of 2008, the unemployment rate was 6.1%. I will not be surprised if October’s is lower either, but that is purely my own speculation. Check out this website from the US Department of Labor:


  14. I meant to say poverty rate, my mistake. (although the average rate of unemployment under Clinton is only barely under Bush, and Clinton left at the beginning of a recession)

  15. The poverty rate for families in 2000 was 8.7. In 2007, it was 9.8. That’s not lower under Bush than it was under Clinton. 2007 is the most recent data at the US Census website. Again, my speculation is that the rate is even higher now.

  16. Average Poverty Rate – First Six Years of an Administration:
    Reagan: 14.4%
    Clinton: 13.9%
    Bush 43: 12.3%

  17. Why are the numbers so wildly different???? Even if you go to the link I posted and look at the same averages…..

  18. Oh, I see…I just checked out your link, JStat. That sure looks like a right-wing-biased site.

  19. I’m having trouble with your link, can you post the averages based on the census data?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s