The lonely 6 percent

[Bob]

It's a Great Time to Be Rich - BusinessWeek It's a Great Time to Be Rich
If the tax cuts become law, the next two years will be the best in living memory for many wealthy Americans to shield their income and fortunes

By Ben Steverman A bonanza of new and extended tax benefits could make it as easy as ever for the rich to stay that way.

Under legislation approved by the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, Dec. 15, and now moving on to the House, savvy wealthy Americans would be able to capitalize on an environment in which their tax rates on income and investments remain at historic lows. Also, new rules would make it possible to pass on fortunes to heirs with less fuss and lower taxes than all but a brief period of the past 80 years. It's a far cry from the 70 percent bite the federal government took out of the largest incomes and estates as recently as 1980.

"The climate we'll have after this legislation is extremely favorable for wealthy families," says Jeffrey Cooper, a professor at Quinnipiac University School of Law and a former estate planner who has studied the history of U.S. tax law.
Low Income Tax

The good news for the rich starts with income tax rates, which for top income groups would remain 35 percent , a rate enacted by former President George W. Bush in 2003. Except for a period from 1988 to 1992, the top tax rate has never been this low since 1931.

"Top rates are incredibly low from a historical perspective," says Indiana University law professor Ajay Mehrotra. The most surprising thing, he says, is that rates have remained at this level even as the U.S. has been fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Historically, income taxes on the wealthy have spiked during wartime: The first income tax was initiated during the Civil War and then later repealed. The top rate on income hit 77 percent in 1918, during World War I, and 94 percent from 1944 to 1945, during World War II.

 

[30ashopper]

Maybe you should realize the high price you're paying for fiscal conservatism. I'll gladly risk the slight possibility of slightly higher taxes to keep the religious whack jobs out of office. I think of it as a campaign donation. The reality is that the Republicans do no better a job fiscally than the democrats. You've ODd on libertarian koolaid. You are too hung up on theory and priciple to recognize the reality that is right in front of you.

Well I disagree. For one, I have tax data going back twenty years, and I can assure you I've paid less to the federal government during times when republicans had control over tax legislation. Secondly, I don't see average Christians in this country as "whack jobs" and I doubt we would agree on the overall effect balance these folks have on policy. Lastly IMHO your views on libertarianism and what you think the realities are are warped by your progressive sensibilities. I could really care less what you think about my principles.

 

[LuciferSam]

That's the part that gets me. Wea re under a huge financial strain from fighting two wars. This is considered a legitimate reason for taxation even by the most conservative among us. So what do they do? In a time of deep recession they worry most about the financial health of those who are best financially equipped to handle a tax burden.

 

[LuciferSam]

Well I disagree. For one, I have tax data going back twenty years, and I can assure you I've paid less to the federal government during times when republicans had control over tax legislation. Secondly, I don't see average Christians in this country as "whack jobs" and I doubt we would agree on the overall effect balance these folks have on policy. Lastly IMHO your views on libertarianism and what you think the realities are are warped by your progressive sensibilities. I could really care less what you think about my principles.

Even Ayn Rand thought Libertarians were a bunch of whack jobs. I think their philosophy is silly, pie in the sky, idealistic, theoretical, cultish, and divorced from reality. I think most would agree. [edit] and of course, naive.

 

[30ashopper]

That's the part that gets me. Wea re under a huge financial strain from fighting two wars. This is considered a legitimate reason for taxation even by the most conservative among us. So what do they do? In a time of deep recession they worry most about the financial health of those who are best financially equipped to handle a tax burden.

Under Obama and the liberal democrats we've seen unfunded tax cuts for 95% of all Americans, the delayed wind down of one war and the escalation of the other, spending boondoggles we couldn't afford, increased federal regulation, and a wonder national mandate to purchase a product from a private industry your party constantly vilifies.

For libertarians, it's always a choice between lesser evils. For me, your side almost always looses that decision. Sorry, better luck next time!

 

[LuciferSam]

Under Obama and the liberal democrats we've seen unfunded tax cuts for 95% of all Americans, the delayed wind down of one war and the escalation of the other, spending boondoggles we couldn't afford, increased federal regulation, and a wonder national mandate to purchase a product from a private industry your party constantly vilifies.

For libertarians, it's always a choice between lesser evils. For me, your side almost always looses that decision. Sorry, better luck next time!

And we're better off than we were under the 8 year nightmare of republican rule we endured under GWB. But you keep sticking to the textbook and your charts and graphs to give you a clue to your overall well-being.

 

[30ashopper]

And we're better off than we were under the 8 year nightmare of republican rule we endured under GWB. But you keep sticking to the textbook and your charts and graphs to give you a clue to your overall well-being.

That's entirely subjective. I'm not 100% happy with the history of GB tenure, but I also wonder how happy I would be looking back on eight years of President Al Gore. Like I said, it's about choosing the lesser of two evils. Last I checked predicting the future wasn't possible. Bush was the right choice in 2000.

 

[LuciferSam]

That's entirely subjective. I'm not 100% happy with the history of GB tenure, but I also wonder how happy I would be looking back on eight years of President Al Gore. Like I said, it's about choosing the lesser of two evils. Last I checked predicting the future wasn't possible. Bush was the right choice in 2000.

This is all of course water under the bridge, but I never understood why people thought Gore's policies would be drastically different than Clinton's, which seemed to serve the country quite well. I don't see how it was so crystal clear that Bush seemed like the right choice. He's a great example for this discussion. A religious zealot who put too much trust in his own faith. How anyone couldn't see that coming from a mile away and months before the 2000 election is beyond me.

 

[zip3]

Science: The lonely 6% | The Economist lonely 6%

Dec 9th 2010, 18:35 by M.S.

*
*

DANIEL SAREWITZ devotes an entire column in Slate to the fact that only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republicans (55% self-identify as Democrats) without offering even a hypothetical explanation of how this situation might have come about. This is as close as he gets:

It doesn't seem plausible that the dearth of Republican scientists has the same causes as the under-representation of women or minorities in science. I doubt that teachers are telling young Republicans that math is too hard for them, as they sometimes do with girls; or that socioeconomic factors are making it difficult for Republican students to succeed in science, as is the case for some ethnic minority groups. The idea of mentorship programs for Republican science students, or scholarship programs to attract Republican students to scientific fields, seems laughable, if delightfully ironic.

Yet there is clearly something going on that is as yet barely acknowledged, let alone understood. As a first step, leaders of the scientific community should be willing to investigate and discuss the issue.

I can think of three testable hypotheses they might look into. The first is that scientists are hostile towards Republicans, which scares young Republicans away from careers in science. The second is that Republicans are hostile towards science, and don't want to go into careers in science. The third is that young people who go into the sciences tend to end up becoming Democrats, due to factors inherent in the practice of science or to peer-group identification with other scientists. In the absence of data, I leave it to you to decide which you find most plausible. But by all means, social scientists should look into this.

I'm so lonely I could cry. Hank Williams, Sr.

 

[AnaEdwardsPhotography]

I read it that many "conservative" beliefs could prevent acceptance and consideration of certain treatments or therapies.

Stem cells, abortion, contraception, or gene therapy are some examples that spring to mind.

Exactly, Scooterbug...If a scientist had conservative values all of the above would go against his beliefs. Therefore, how could he devote his time to these sciences without committing hypocrisy?
If the original post had said "only 6% of all scientists are conservatives" ...would there be so much debate about the statistic?
My point is that Republicans are characteristically conservative, therefore being led to careers with values parallel to their beliefs.
To be a scientist, whether in social behavior, botanical studies, or nuclear science, one must be willing to test theories and report findings objectively. Just the facts, not interpretations based on personal beliefs.
When I brought up homosexuality as an example in my first post, I had in mind the many times I've heard that "in the Bible it explicitly states that homosexuality is a sin". Yes, it does...but homosexual behavior has been observed in every species of mammal, according to studies now taught in our universities, by professors with degrees in social sciences. Honestly, how many Republicans do you know who would teach the idea that homosexuality is a natural animal behavior?