Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
But also we need to provide security for Europe, South Korea, Japan, and fuck knows who else for free. And fight foreign wars for "democracy". Those Syrians will be Jeffersonian Democrats after we bomb the shit out of them.
Never mind that like, 47% of Americans pay little or no federal income tax and those that do (rich people) HATE Republicans and vote Democrat. MUH TAX CUTS
It's clear Romney is referring to federal taxes and his figure mirrors one from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, which found that in 2011, 46 percent of tax filers paid no income tax, vs. about 54 percent of tax filers that did have some federal income tax liability. In 2009, the Tax Policy Center estimated the proportion who paid no taxes was 47 percent.
About half of people who don’t pay income taxes are simply poor, and the tax code explicitly exempts them.
"For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero," Roberton Williams, a scholar with the Tax Policy Center, wrote last year. "The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax."
The remaining Americans who owe no federal income taxes are benefiting from tax breaks, the center found.
"Three-fourths of those households pay no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children. Those provisions include the exclusion of some Social Security benefits from taxable income, the tax credit and extra standard deduction for the elderly, and the child, earned income, and child care tax credits that primarily help low-income workers with children," he wrote.
For the first time in decades, the wealthy are set to deliver a landslide victory for a Democratic presidential candidate.
While polling data on the rich is imprecise given their small population, polls of the top-earning households favor Hillary Clinton over Donald J. Trump two to one. The July Affluent Barometer survey by Ipsos found that among voters earning more than $100,000 a year — roughly the top 25 percent of households — 45 percent said they planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 28 percent planned to vote for Mr. Trump. The rest were undecided or planned to vote for another candidate.
The spread was even wider among the highest earners. For those earning $250,000 or more — roughly the top 5 percent of households — 53 percent planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton while 25 percent favored Mr. Trump. The survey’s margin of error was plus or minus four points.
It's interesting to note that these millionaires for Hillary are "voting against their own interests" because they are the ones who stand to gain most from tax cuts, perhaps out of some kind of noblesse oblige.
A lot of it is due to class. Trump is a billionaire (or at least he identifies as a billionaire) but he's not elite. He has trashy prole tastes (ketchup on well done steak, anyone?), acts like a trashy prole (grab em by the pussy), talks like a trashy prole, etc. Trump is a prole who just happens to have a lot of money. This goes a long way to explain why prole whites would identify with a billionaire. He's signaling prole values like crazy, something, say, Mitt Romney (who is an old money elite) could never pull off.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#818,321
@previous (Meta)
Ehhh, but we distinctly saw the voting patterns did not reflect the polls with high fidelity. I appreciate the source. Thanks!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#818,327
@818,318 (Meta)
How does that support the claim that rich people "hate republicans and vote democrat"? The reason there's even an article about it is because it is so highly unusual for rich people to vote Dem. Rich people hate Trump and so won't vote for Trump but that just drives home the point that the Republican party is the party of the wealthy elite, but Donald Trump is so awful that even they will hold their nose and vote Clinton. For what it's worth that didn't come true. See http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
People earning 250k or more were split 46/46. The poor and working poor overwhelmingly favored Clinton.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Meta (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#818,329
@818,321 (C)
Hey I tried!. It's hard to tell because it's such a small demographic and voting is anonymous.
Bonus from 2008:
Last week's election was perhaps Bushenfreude's grandest day. As the campaign entered its final weeks, Barack Obama, who pledged to unite the country, singled out one group of people for ridicule: those making more than $250,000. At his rallies, he would ask for a show of hands of those making less than one-quarter of $1 million per year. Then he'd look around, laugh, and note that those in the virtuous majority would get their taxes cut, while the rich among them would be hit with a tax increase. And yet the exit polls show, the rich—and yes, if you make $250,000 or more you're rich—went for Obama by bigger margins than did the merely well-off. If the exit polls are to be believed, those making $200,000 or more (6 percent of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46, while McCain won the merely well-off ($100,000 to $150,000 by a 51-48 margin and $150,000 to $200,000 by a 50-48 margin).
Right-wingers tend to dismiss such numbers as the voting behavior of trust funders or gazillionaires—people who have so much money that they just don't care about taxes. That may explain a portion of Bushenfreude. But there just aren't that many trust funders out there. Rather, it's clear that the nation's mass affluent—Steve the lawyer, Colby the financial services executive, Ari the highly paid media big shot—are trending Democratic, especially on the coasts. Indeed, Bushenfreude is not necessarily a nationwide phenomenon. As Andrew Gelman notes in the book "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State," the rich in poor states are likely to stick with the Republicans.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#818,341
@818,327 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU) > it is so highly unusual for rich people to vote Dem.
Meh, it depends where you look. You can find plenty of wealthy blue voters in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. New York and Florida have a good number of wealthy democrats. Even super-wealthy people like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates lean pretty heavily into the blue. I wouldn't call it highly unusual.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#818,343
@previous (F)
True, I phrased that poorly. I meant it was highly unusual for rich people as a whole to prefer Dem to Rep in a presidential election, which is what that NY Times article was talking about (and predicting incorrectly).
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#818,355
@818,318 (Meta)
money elite is the only kind of elite that gets you anywhere
also, not everyone has a reptile's sense of societal good so it's silly to puzzle why anyone would vote one way or another merely based on tax
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#818,375
Aren't the Jeffersonian Republicans the modern day Democratic party?