• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Democrats......Party of the Rich

Mike

Well-known member
Article published Nov 23, 2007
Democrats party of rich, study finds


November 23, 2007


By Donald Lambro - Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

The shift in the number of wealthier Democratic districts got a significant bounce in the last election.

"A fair number of these districts are represented by freshmen, a lot of the guys who got elected in 2006," he said.

"The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the rich.' More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households," he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a preview of his study.

In addition, the current Senate tax debate provides an example of how the Democrats' rich constituents are influencing their agenda and have divided House and Senate Democrats.

In the House, for example, Democrats have made elimination of the alternative minimum tax, known as the AMT, the centerpiece of a sweeping tax-revision plan crafted by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The AMT law was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1969 to make sure that wealthy taxpayers — some of whom were able to use tax breaks to avoid paying anything — paid at least some taxes.

Over the years, as many middle-class incomes rose, people were increasingly being pushed into higher tax brackets once reserved for only the richest Americans. The largest portion of these taxpayers live predominantly in Northeastern "blue" states dominated by Democrats, who, inundated by constituent complaints, soon began joining their Republican counterparts in pushing to eliminate the AMT.

But the strongest manifestation of the influence that the Democrats' wealthiest constituencies are wielding over party policy came earlier this month as Democratic leaders were considering a proposal to offset revenue losses from AMT repeal by raising taxes on hedge-fund managers, many of whom are major contributors to the Democratic Party.

A "stopgap" bill authored by Mr. Rangel to tax hedge-fund compensation at 35 percent as regular income rather than the current 15 percent capital-gains rate, which passed the House Nov. 9, appears to be going nowhere with Senate Democrats.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which has raised tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street financiers and hedge-fund managers, opposes Mr. Rangel's plan. Earlier this month, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, said the tax increase was a bad idea and could not pass the Senate.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, also has said he wants a stand-alone fix for the AMT without an offsetting tax increase, fearing that any vote to raise taxes now will hurt vulnerable Democrats in next year's elections. More moderate Blue Dog Democrats in the House have also been among the critics of the tax increase.

Some Democrats acknowledge that moneyed interests are exerting a strong influence on their party's agenda and legislation.

"The fact is that [the Democratic campaign committees] have had large contributions from these hedge-fund folks," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank.

"As far as the hedge funds and tax breaks go, the Democrats are clearly getting a lot of money from people who are affected by that, and they're responding," Mr. Baker said.

Mr. Franc thinks this turnabout by Democrats, whose campaign mantra has long been to tax the rich more, is only the beginning.

"Increasingly, we will see Democrats responding to the economic demands of this particular upper-income constituency," he said.

"What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they will have to sock it to their own constituents," Mr. Franc said.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they will have to sock it to their own constituents," Mr. Franc said.

Mr. Franc's boat is a bit leaky, I think. There are many wealthy people who are more than willing to share their wealth with others. I don't know his political affiliation, but one of the richest men in the US, Warren Buffett, has called for higher taxes on HIMSELF and complained about a tax system that allows him to pay less taxes than his hired help. So the idea that because the Dems represent wealthy people, they'll not tax them doesn't hold up to serious discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
ff said:
"What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they will have to sock it to their own constituents," Mr. Franc said.

Mr. Franc's boat is a bit leaky, I think. There are many wealthy people who are more than willing to share their wealth with others. I don't know his political affiliation, but one of the richest men in the US, Warren Buffett, has called for higher taxes on HIMSELF and complained about a tax system that allows him to pay less taxes than his hired help. So the idea that because the Dems represent wealthy people, they'll not tax them doesn't hold up to serious discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
:lol2: I am sure the govt will accept donations from Mr. Buffet any time he wants to give some money. Nice try though ff.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Mr. Buffet does not believe that an inherited aristocracy is good for the country or democracy. The founding fathers did not either. They believed in a land of opportunity, not one of the lottery of the uterus.

George Washington gave up his power to sustain something greater than he. I only wish we had such patriots today.

I think some of you would like to think it is better, but then again, I don't see yall running to England, or for that matter, subjecting yourselves to the Indian caste system.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mr. Buffet does not believe that an inherited aristocracy is good for the country or democracy.

Maybe it's because he is getting rich from selling insurance and finacial products that help the rich skirt around the inheritance taxes...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Mr. Buffet does not believe that an inherited aristocracy is good for the country or democracy.

Maybe it's because he is getting rich from selling insurance and finacial products that help the rich skirt around the inheritance taxes...

It would be nice if this were true, for your point.

During the Congressional hearings this fallacy was completely refuted.

It exists only in the minds of those who want to spout off incorrect talking points.

Buffet has positions in companies that are are PC insurers, not life. Any life insurance investments are purely incidental.

Steve, where did you hear this misinformation?
 

Steve

Well-known member
It would be nice if this were true, for your point.

Warren Buffet himself claims to pay less taxes then his secretary...


and to top it off brags he won't pay any of the inheritance tax either..
yet you still believe him when he says the death tax is good... yep,.. good for you,..and me.. but not for him... :roll: :roll: :roll:


He also suggested family partnerships and other estate-planning tools can help to bring down the liability.
Of course, you can always consider the option selected by Buffett. He's giving almost all of his wealth to charity.

"Last year, I arranged for the bulk of my Berkshire holdings to go to five charitable foundations, thus carrying out part of my lifelong plan to eventually use all of my shares for philanthropic purposes," Buffett wrote to his shareholders last year.

"Taxes, I should note, had nothing to do with my decision or its timing," he said. However, by giving away his money while he is still alive, will put Buffett in a position where he will be required to pay little if any estate taxes.

Taxes have nothing to do with his decision... nope he just wants to spend it "his way",..

I can't understand how some one can buy into a Buffett's plan when Buffett himself is taking actions to avoid paying the death tax..

Liberal don't want to support their agenda,... They want to force you to support their agenda.. :roll:

BTW
The other foundation gifts that Buffett is making will also occur annually and start in July. At Berkshire's current price, the combined 2006 total of these gifts will be $315 million. The contributions will go to foundations headed by Buffett's three children, Susan, Howard, and Peter, and to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.
and he has secured his
Up to now, the two Gateses have been the only trustees of their foundation. But as his plan gets underway, Buffett will be joining them.

what a plan skirt the death tax... give your children life long jobs and control... it must be the ultimate liberal plan.. give them enough to do anything!,.. and pay no taxes to boot..

Buffett once commented, "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing"

LOW-KEY SIBLINGS Howard, Susie and Peter Buffett were propelled into the top ranks of philanthropy after their father, Warren Buffett, gave each of their foundations gifts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Graham_Buffett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buffett

now thanks to Warren not paying the death tax they can do anything they want,,, as long as it comply with his control ,.. oops I mean foundation... :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
It would be nice if this were true, for your point.

Warren Buffet himself claims to pay less taxes then his secretary...


and to top it off brags he won't pay any of the inheritance tax either..
yet you still believe him when he says the death tax is good... yep,.. good for you,..and me.. but not for him... :roll: :roll: :roll:


He also suggested family partnerships and other estate-planning tools can help to bring down the liability.
Of course, you can always consider the option selected by Buffett. He's giving almost all of his wealth to charity.

"Last year, I arranged for the bulk of my Berkshire holdings to go to five charitable foundations, thus carrying out part of my lifelong plan to eventually use all of my shares for philanthropic purposes," Buffett wrote to his shareholders last year.

"Taxes, I should note, had nothing to do with my decision or its timing," he said. However, by giving away his money while he is still alive, will put Buffett in a position where he will be required to pay little if any estate taxes.

Taxes have nothing to do with his decision... nope he just wants to spend it "his way",..

I can't understand how some one can buy into a Buffett's plan when Buffett himself is taking actions to avoid paying the death tax..

Liberal don't want to support their agenda They want to force you to support their agenda.. :roll:

Steve, you still don't have it right. Buffet pays way more taxes than his secretary in real terms. His tax rate (total taxes which includes SS and others) as a percent is lower than his secretary's. This just goes to point out that the rich already pay lower taxes because we have given advantages to "investment" over labor in our tax policy.

If any other really wealthy family wants to give their money away to charity, then they would have to pay no estate tax either. That is already the case today.

I still think Buffet stands with the founding fathers in believing that men and women in the U.S. should get ahead with opportunity and merit, not the uterine lottery.

Do you have any other inaccurate information or goofy talking points that support your bias towards the rich?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Do you have any other inaccurate information or goofy talking points that support your bias towards the rich?

You claim this is a fallacy yet offer nothing other then liberal talking points to support
Buffet is getting rich by buying assets and through insurance holdings.. many business have been forced to be sold because of the death tax.. I am sure he has bought assets once held by families that had to sell to pay the tax... in fact you would be hard pressed to find any old corporations that were not the result of the death tax,..either in an effort to avoid it, or to pay the taxes many once family owned companies were sold...incorprated and broken up..

From the article:

Unfortunately, not all business people are in the same position as Buffett. Their wealth is tied up in businesses they own and operate, providing income for themselves and their families.

"It is difficult, but we can deal with the variables of weather, drought, labor shortage, market conditions, and day-by-day business expenses such as the increasing price of fuel," rancher Dean Rhoads said in testimony before the Senate committee.
When his mother-in-law died in 1976, the family was required to pay $300,000 in estate taxes. When the father-in-law died in 1995, another $340,000 had to be paid.
"But, if you continue to add the specter of the burden of this unfair tax -- if we have to pay this much a third time as a family for one ranch -- I do not have much optimism for our future," Rhoads said.

the truth is that the rich don't get hurt by the death tax... working Americans with assets get hurt!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You guys can argue about Warren Buffett all you want, but the premise of the original post is that Dems will stop representing the poor and middle class because there are wealthy people in their districts. That's a bunch of hooey and Buffett is one example.
 

Steve

Well-known member
You guys can argue about Warren Buffett all you want, but the premise of the original post is that Dems will stop representing the poor and middle class because there are wealthy people in their districts. That's a bunch of hooey and Buffett is one example.

One example that shows the post is true!

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett co-hosted a glitzy New York fundraiser for democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., on Tuesday at the Sheraton Hotel in Time Square that raised about $1-million for her '08 bid.

The chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett, will host a presidential campaign fund raiser for Senator Clinton in New York City

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton was all ears at a fundraiser Tuesday evening when famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett

Buffett, however, did not explicitly back Clinton in her bid for the White House during Tuesday night's event - although he has made a number of contributions to her different political campaigns, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Buffett has not endorsed a candidate for president and has said publicly he likes both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. He is hosting an Obama fundraiser later this summer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
You guys can argue about Warren Buffett all you want, but the premise of the original post is that Dems will stop representing the poor and middle class because there are wealthy people in their districts. That's a bunch of hooey and Buffett is one example.

One example that shows the post is true!

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett co-hosted a glitzy New York fundraiser for democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., on Tuesday at the Sheraton Hotel in Time Square that raised about $1-million for her '08 bid.

The chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett, will host a presidential campaign fund raiser for Senator Clinton in New York City

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton was all ears at a fundraiser Tuesday evening when famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett

Buffett, however, did not explicitly back Clinton in her bid for the White House during Tuesday night's event - although he has made a number of contributions to her different political campaigns, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Buffett has not endorsed a candidate for president and has said publicly he likes both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. He is hosting an Obama fundraiser later this summer.

Buffett can have fund raisers for whoever he wants. From my link above:

Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.
Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

The third richest man in the world says he thinks his tax rate is too low. Here he is, giving fund raising parties for Dems, yet he says the tax code needs to be fixed to stop favoring the rich. Mr. Franc's article is doublespeak, a desperate attempt to paint Dems with the same brush as Republicans.
 

Steve

Well-known member
ff
The third richest man in the world says he thinks his tax rate is too low. Here he is, giving fund raising parties for Dems, yet he says the tax code needs to be fixed to stop favoring the rich.

Buffet seems to have memorized the favorite democrat mantra... Tax the rich...give to the government

but what they forget to tell you poor schmucks is that the rich do not pay taxes...

Billionaire Buffet is living proof that the democrats are the party of the super rich...

If you don't believe me ask Soros... and all the other "elite"... if you think they actually want to help you then send them a donation.... :roll: :roll: :roll:


Liberal don't want to support their agenda They want to force you to support their agenda.. :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
ff
The third richest man in the world says he thinks his tax rate is too low. Here he is, giving fund raising parties for Dems, yet he says the tax code needs to be fixed to stop favoring the rich.

Buffet seems to have memorized the favorite democrat mantra... Tax the rich...give to the government

but what they forget to tell you poor schmucks is that the rich do not pay taxes...

Billionaire Buffet is living proof that the democrats are the party of the super rich...

If you don't believe me ask Soros... and all the other "elite"... if you think they actually want to help you then send them a donation.... :roll: :roll: :roll:


Liberal don't want to support their agenda They want to force you to support their agenda.. :roll:

Liberal don't want to support their agenda They want to force you to support their agenda..

Boy, isn't that really Bush's Iraq policy. I think you have it nailed, Steve.

The worse thing is that they aren't even raising the funds for the war-- they are stealing it from children in the form of debt that will have to be paid back.

[/quote]
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
Boy, isn't that really Bush's Iraq policy. I think you have it nailed, Steve.

The worse thing is that they aren't even raising the funds for the war-- they are stealing it from children in the form of debt that will have to be paid back.

as usual when you can't answer or respond to a post ,...It's bush's fault...

the thread was: "the premise of the original post is that Dems will stop representing the poor and middle class because there are wealthy people in their districts."

try to at least stay on topic
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tex
Boy, isn't that really Bush's Iraq policy. I think you have it nailed, Steve.

The worse thing is that they aren't even raising the funds for the war-- they are stealing it from children in the form of debt that will have to be paid back.

as usual when you can't answer or respond to a post ,...It's bush's fault...

the thread was: "the premise of the original post is that Dems will stop representing the poor and middle class because there are wealthy people in their districts."

try to at least stay on topic

Steve, if I was married to you (which will not ever happen), you can tell me what to post or not post. Even with that impossible scenario you would not be successful. And no, this is not a proposal, just the extreme case where a person could counsel or have influence on another.

I don't know if the dems. will go with the corporate money in policy. I know the republicans have.

Look how it has served them.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
ff said:
You guys can argue about Warren Buffett all you want, but the premise of the original post is that Dems will stop representing the poor and middle class because there are wealthy people in their districts. That's a bunch of hooey and Buffett is one example.

Buffett is not a politician and does not make any policies. What he does is irrelevant. It is easy for him to say what he says now, he has already made his fortune.

The Dem's are for the Poor people. They like to keep them poor so they can offer Social programs for votes. As long as poor people will vote for handouts it serves the Dem's to make sure they stay poor.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tex
Steve, if I was married to you (which will not ever happen), you can tell me what to post or not post. Even with that impossible scenario you would not be successful. And no, this is not a proposal, just the extreme case where a person could counsel or have influence on another.

again off topic..

I think you must have either stayed up way past your bed check time, forgot your meds, or are one lonely sick ,...... ..


But, in an effort to be tolerant of your liberal tendancies,... I can respect your need for a strong conservative male to look up to, but please try not to confuse it with your deviant needs... I am not interested,..
 
Top