Do average Americans get suckered into the anti tax mentality of Norquist and Mickelson?

[alp227]

I read this LTTE in the local newspaper:

I applaud golfer Phil Mickelson for bravely saying he might move out of California for being taxed too much. With combined federal and state taxes, Michelson could be required to give up 60 percent of his income. There is no justification to take that much money from him. Lately, higher income earners are being vilified by the media and the court of public opinion for simply being successful. Families earning more than $250,000 a year are already paying plenty in taxes, and are now being forced to pay even more to Robin Hood governments that don't offer any viable solutions to reduce irresponsible overspending. Shameful!

Of course the letter writer is repeating Mickelson's provocative BS 60 percent tax statement, as even CNBC (NOT a pinko socialist outlet...the network that employs Rick Santelli who coined the Tea Party movement name, Maria Bartiromo, Joe Kernan, etc.) reported: "But several accountants interviewed said it's unlikely that Mickelson is actually paying a rate above 60 percent. With even the most basic tax planning, they said, his real rate is most likely closer to 50 percent." And we've all heard the lines like "higher income earners are being vilified by the media and the court of public opinion for simply being successful" and "irresponsible overspending" before.

This got me thinking. Thanks to nearly ~3 decades of Reaganomics and ~2.5 decades of right wing dominated talk radio, even middle class Americans seem to be suckered into the anti tax messages of the right whether by billionaire lobbyist Grover Norquist or multimillionaire golf star Phil Mickelson? I mean, I did glance at Free Republic after the Mickelson news, and seeing everyone cheering there, I think the reaction isn't just limited to freeper types.

Chances are, a lot of independent voters (who can be described as "low information" voters) who may otherwise want well-funded public schools, police departments, public libraries, etc. or Social Security and Medicare to be maintained for their future buy into this "low taxes" message they hear in RW media. They vote for politicians who sign the Norquist pledge and thus never ever ever ever raise taxes as long as they're in office...even if that means screwing over retirees, students, public safety, etc. in the name of Lord Lobbyist, and then get all excited when they hear a wealthy celebrity complain about taxes.

[dkf]

1. What do you think making the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts permanent was about?

That was a huge anti-tax measure for 98% of our citizens. It validated the idea that paying taxes is bad and only a small portion of the country can afford to pay it.

[hfojvt]

3. yep, the Norquist anti-tax mentality is coming from Obama

and many other Democrats

and the ATRA betrayal was a tax cut for 100% of Americans. Even the top 1% got $600 billion in tax cuts. Because their $1.2 trillion in tax cuts was reduced to "just" $600 billion, it is being called a tax increase.

[Selatius]

2. If they're low-information voters, all they are generally exposed to is effective right-wing memes.

Thanks, in no small part, to consolidated corporate control over the news networks. I've long suspected that shareholders who run these networks also carry shares in defense corporations that profit during war and increased policing and surveillance powers.

When I say "effective," I don't mean factually accurate. More likely, these memes are crafted to be easily repeatable and are simple to grasp despite them typically being false. Effective propaganda has always been a weapon of the powerful against the weak of mind and the weak of heart.

[Make7]

4. "If we need to raise taxes in California ... then so be it."

 
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left: 1em; border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.4615em; box-shadow: 3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Education must be priority in state

I have been a registered Republican my entire adult life. For the most part, I have maintained a moderate to fairly conservative philosophy about social issues, with one exception: children and their needs. I cannot rationalize for one second cutting any more funding to education. These blithering idiots in Sacramento do not get it. Many countries have better education systems than the United States. If we need to raise taxes in California to properly educate our kids and prepare them for the world that awaits them, then so be it. If I can get off my high horse, the idiots in Sacramento can do the same.[font style="font-size:0.7692em;"]


[/font][div class="footer" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; display:inline; font-size:0.8462em;"]http://www.mercurynews.com/letters/ci_17745247/
That appears to be the same person. I guess taxes aren't always bad - perhaps just when you're a multi-millionaire professional golfer...