Are Republicans inherently selfish?

[u/SignificantCrow]

Not referring to every individual obviously but as a whole, compared to democrats/independents they seem to really only care about themselves or their immediate family and pretty much have a “f**k em” attitude towards literally everyone else. Does anyone else feel this way?

This would explain why so many are against social policies but have no issue dumping much more money into the military instead, for example.

[u/Quietrebellion11]

I think it depends on how you define selfish. Republicans generally seem to voluntarily give more to non government entities to help others. Democrats seem to want it to be done thru the government, which is inherently wasteful and arbitrary. Ironically its also only done thru the threat of violence (taxes) when its government based.

[u/CornWellington123 → u/Quietrebellion11]

Inherently wasteful I agree with, but not necessarily arbitrary. Even if Americans suck at democracy, we do still have one and tend to vote people in or out depending on if their stated (although not necessarily true or displayed) values align with our own.

I personally think that the coerced and inefficient government avenue is better for a couple of reasons. 1. Tax revenue tends to be more steady and predictable which makes it easier to manage. Also, the government can use deficit spending to smooth out any cyclical changes in revenue. 2. When economic hard times hit, and the needy are at their most neediest, is also the time that everyone tightens up their own budgets and charitable giving is one of the first things to get cut.

[u/Quietrebellion11 → u/CornWellington123]

There's a ton of arbitrary rules and specifics that are added to every social program. Deficit spending is also totally ridiculous. Using debt to fund anything in the gov is dumb. Its probably whats going to destroy this country. Debt servicing is the biggest line item after defense i believe. Stop spending money we dont have. Yes its called a budget for a reason, when theres no money you cant spend it. But then we are once again forced thru threats of violence to give. Thats called robbery when its not the government. Where they waste something like 80% or more before ever doing anything with it. Nothing has been made better because the government got involved. I honestly believe most of the hard times are directly caused by governments.

[u/CornWellington123 → u/Quietrebellion11]

I mean, governments exist for a reason. Do you honestly believe the world would be better off without any government at all? If not, then you have to concede that they make some things better.

I think the issue with US debt is that we have one party that wants to tax and spend, and the other that wants to cut taxes and spend. We ran a surplus in the Clinton years before the bush and trump tax cuts... would it be so bad to go back to the tax policies of the 1990s?

Deficit spending is a powerful tool the government can use to ease or reverse recessions. If your private employer goes bust in a recession, but you can get hired one with the government to keep earning a paycheck, I think that's a good thing. The problem is that during economic expansionary periods, where the private sector is doing well and hiring, the government doesn't cut it's spending. In an ideal world, government would ramp down spending in the boom times to let the private sector expand and ramp up spending in the busts to keep people afloat. I don't think that's politically possible though.

[u/Quietrebellion11 → u/CornWellington123]

Government is a necessary evil. We have to live with certain parts of it or there is no civilized society. Humans are too tribal to just have nothing. But i honestly dont think they truely made any situation other then pure anarchy better. Like i said i think they created all the hard times.

Its the spend i have a problem with. You cant spend your way out of not having enough money. It always come due. And if theres one thing the government almost never does is lower spending. Tax law should be stupid simple. A Flat rate is my preference. But im willing to entertain other ideas as long as a high schooler is able understand it and not need a professional to stay out of trouble with irs. Id really like to go back way farther then 1990s if going back was the option.

[u/CornWellington123 → u/Quietrebellion11]

I think any simple tax law will quickly get muddied up by details. What about retirement accounts? Gift tax? Inheritance tax? Capital gains vs earned income? Those are all things that would need to be hammered out in detail. I also don't think a flat tax is fair. If you make $10,000 a year then each dollar is a lot more valuable to you than if you make $1m a year. Idk man, shit gets complicated quickly. Thanks for an honest discussion though.

[u/Quietrebellion11 → u/CornWellington123]

Why does it have to get muddied up? A flat percentage of every dollar made is the same level of sacrifice for everyone no matter the income level. Those are all issues that were created thru the complicated tax code. If its simple and easy percentage then non of that stuff matters. You make money in any way and the gov gets a certain percentage. No tax advantaged accounts. No trusts. No loopholes. Nothing is more advantageous as ways to make money.

[u/CornWellington123 → u/Quietrebellion11]

Because of you have a flat tax of say 10% to make the math easier, then the person who makes 10k takes home 9k and that effects if they can make rent, how much food they can buy, if they can afford new clothes... things that are necessary to live. The person making 1m who now takes home 900k isn't worried about having shelter, food, or clothing. There's a difference between taxing people's discretionary vs non-discretionary earnings. And the more you earn, the more non-discretionary money you have.

Similarly, the money you invest in a 401k to one day retire isn't the same as the money invested by a day trader, which isn't the same as someone who invests long term in a business. These are all different and should be treated as such.

Should someone who inherits their house from their parents be taxed the same as someone who wins the lottery? They're both sources of income.

[u/Quietrebellion11 → u/CornWellington123]

The guy making a million is definitely not worried about the necessities, but it is fair all the way across income levels. And i disagree about that stuff being different. Making money is making money how you made it is arbitrary. Yes lottery and inheritance is the same as a source of income. Did the net worth go up? Then tax it at a certain percentage. Investing for retirement is the same. Its not a 401k any more cause thats a tax advantaged account. But if you made money on your investments then tax a percentage on the increase in net worth. You put money in a business, was it successful and the net worth went up? Then tax that increase. We're are worried about all the ways we can use the ridiculously convoluted tax code to benefit us. Trying to figure out how to pay the least amount we can. No one gives extra to the gov and says "hey you can use it better then me". Even people who think the government should be in charge of the social safety nets dont willingly give more. But if there is only one rule, if you made money then they take a percentage, no one can complain about it being unfair. Inequality of finances will always be a thing. Trying to use taxes to advantage or disadvantage someone, some businesses, some industry is just wrong.

[u/CornWellington123 → u/Quietrebellion11]

But I think it is unfair. Taxing the first dollar someone makes the same as the millionth dollar isn't fair because those dollars don't provide the same value to the person. Likewise, winning $500k in the lottery and having to give $50k of it to the government isn't the same as inheriting your parents $500k house and trying to figure out how to come up with $50k or having to sell it to cover.

10% of every dollar may sound fair, but it's not when the value of a dollar is situationally dependent.