Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @02:58AM (18 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @02:58AM (#606588)

    There are tax cuts in there for the ultra wealthy, in the form of tax cuts to pass-through businesses, repeal of the estate tax, etc..

    FTFY. When a break affects more than just the rich, calling it a break for the rich is knowingly spouting disingenuous bullshit.

    Fair enough.

    Let's take the estate tax [cbpp.org]

    the tax framework that President Trump and congressional Republican leaders announced in September proposes to repeal the estate tax — a tax on property (cash, real estate, stock, or other assets) transferred from deceased persons to their heirs. The federal estate tax is due only on the portion of an estate’s value that exceeds roughly $5.5 million per person ($11 million per couple). As a result, only the wealthiest 0.2 percent of estates pay the tax, and typically at fairly moderate rates. Repeal would give these estates windfall tax cuts averaging more than $3 million apiece, benefitting wealthy heirs. But it would do virtually nothing for small farms and businesses, despite the claims of repeal supporters. Repeal would also cost $239 billion over ten years and worsen wealth inequality

    So wealthy heirs benefit to the tune of $239B.

    How about those who won't benefit [washingtonpost.com]?

    But few farmers put the elimination of this tax on the top of their wish lists. Only about 20 farms a year are subject to any inheritance tax, and in almost all cases, those farms have adequate liquid assets to cover the taxes without having to sell any part of the business to do so. After searching for 35 years for one example of a family farm that was lost due to the estate tax Iowa State professor Neil Harl stated simply, “It’s a myth.”

    Not about the farms only, you say, but other medium businesses [politifact.com]?

    How about small businesses and farms? The center projected that only about 80 small farms and closely held businesses would pay any estate tax in 2017. That would amount to about 1 percent of all payers of the estate tax that year. And the estate tax revenue from small businesses and farms, the center said, would amount to fifteen-hundredths of 1 percent of the total paid under the estate tax in 2017.

    So, getting rid of the estate tax would hardly "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer," as Trump put it.

    Trump's claim doesn't hold up even if you account for small businesses and farms that would potentially benefit from elimination down the road. The number from the Tax Policy Center (80) only refers to the number of small businesses and farms that would have to pay the tax this year.

    Multiplying the amount of small business and farm-based estate taxpayers who are living today by deaths over the next 70 years would still just result in 5,600 small businesses or farms potentially relieved of the tax — vastly smaller than Trump’s "millions."

    Bottom line - here's a tax break that affects only the rich:
    - the wealthy benefit from it greatly ($239B),
    - the medium businesses benefits in what "would amount to fifteen-hundredths of 1 percent of the total paid under the estate tax in 2017",
    - the poor will not benefit at all.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Informative=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @03:15AM (13 children)

    Interesting. I'll grant you that since you saved me the research. Now a question: so what?

    --
    My preferred pronouns are wetback/faggot/cunt. Your move.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @03:37AM (7 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @03:37AM (#606617)

      Now a question: so what?

      If you meant to ask "Now what?", then I'd say "Now you refrain in picturing the tax legislation as all nice and rosy (even if you'd be only tempted to allude this may be the case), and I won't have any more issues."
      Perhaps you may want to continue looking into other tax breaks and evaluate the fairness towards the medium/poor end of the spectrum. Even if the information is for you only, it's still a plus. But this may be wishful thinking from my side.

      (of course, you continue to be free to say whatever things you like, no matter how wise/clever or stupid, you don't need my permission to do that. But that's irrelevant, isn't it)

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 07, @04:00AM (6 children)

        No, I meant "so what?". As in "what business is it of yours how someone chooses to dispose of what they've earned?". Did you go in to the office for them and do their job but they got to keep the pay? By what logic do you think you have claim to what they've earned then? Whether they choose to leave it to their worthless, lazy children or to snort blow off hooker's asses and then use it to light their cigars, it's not a damned bit of your business.

        Also, until you become a flat tax person, don't ever use the word "fairness" when talking about taxes again. It makes you look like an idiot.

        --
        My preferred pronouns are wetback/faggot/cunt. Your move.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday December 07, @04:36AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @04:36AM (#606642)

          No, I meant "so what?".

          Then my "of course, you continue to be free to say whatever things you like, no matter how wise/clever or stupid" apply.

          It makes you look like an idiot.
          Cultural perspective, I reckon. But, now, if you want to live in that shithole of yours and do nothing to drain it, who am I to object?

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Demena on Thursday December 07, @05:31AM

          by Demena (5637) on Thursday December 07, @05:31AM (#606660)

          It depends on the definition of "earnt". People can make vast amounts of money in ways that can hardly be described as "earnt". Businessmen are often said to "make money", few say they earn it. To me the use of the tern "earnt" implies sweat of some sort - mind or body. If an famous actor earnt the millions they can negotiate for then a fledgling would "earn" the same - same "work" being done.

          Tl;dr "Having" money, "earning" money and "making" money are three different things with different economic and moral stature.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday December 07, @06:50AM (2 children)

          by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @06:50AM (#606681) Homepage Journal

          Not sure why TMB's sincere question got marked "troll". TMB asks: No, I meant "so what?". As in "what business is it of yours how someone chooses to dispose of what they've earned?". It's a fair question.

          Y'all will know that I am pretty libertarian in my view. Nonetheless, I am all for an estate tax, preferably a large one. Why? Precisely because of that phrase "...what they've earned".

          In my view, the increasing split between rich and poor is a serious problem for society. And a lot of that split comes from inherited wealth. Inherited wealth is unearned wealth. Anyone who can make themselves a billionaire - more power to them. Passing those billions down, generation to generation? That is a problem, because it creates the upper "1%" class in perpetuity. An estate tax at least puts some sort of a damper on this.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:24AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:24AM (#606691)

            Not sure why TMB's sincere question got marked "troll". TMB asks: No, I meant "so what?". As in "what business is it of yours how someone chooses to dispose of what they've earned?". It's a fair question.

            Whoa! The level of ignorance is very deep with this one. One: it is TMB. He has been proven wrong, and is trying to double down. Classical, if not very good, trolling. Second, earned? It is not their's! We gave it to them, and it is only their's as long as the majority of society recognizes it as their's. If we ask for some of it back, for the common good, well, it is no longer their's. This is the problem with libertariantards and Republican'ts and certain ex-pats: they think things can exist independently of the rest of reality. They think they are special and separate islands of sovereign citizenry! But separated from everything, what can one be but a giant sucking black hole of emptyness and property rights?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:29AM (#606694)

              But separated from everything, what can one be but a giant sucking fullstop black hole of emptyness and property rights?

              FTFY

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08, @02:02AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @02:02AM (#607066)

          I don't get it.
          In your mind, what's the relation between "Some tax breaks favors the rich" (which was the point of my post) with "None of your business how they choose to spend their earnt money?" (which is the point of your "So what? "question).
          Moving goal posts or what?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07, @05:17AM (4 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @05:17AM (#606654) Journal

      > Now a question: so what?

      Fuck you, that's what. You lie. You say this thing isn't a giveaway to the rich, you are presented with a clear example of how it is, and when this is shown to you, caught in your lie, you attempt to pretend it doesn't matter with "so what." So fuck you. You lie exactly like all the shithead politicians whose boots you cream yourself licking, even as you make endless noises about how "libertarian" you are.

      You're so full of shit your shoes squelch when you walk, and everyone here can see it. That you think you're fooling anyone but yourself is just the dingleberry cherry on top of the shit sundae that is your entire personality.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:47AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:47AM (#606680)

        Insightful? Informative?

        It's almost enough to make one weep for humanity.

        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:31AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @07:31AM (#606695)

          Do not ask for whom humanity weeps, oh libertariantard AC, it weeps for you!

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 08, @08:43PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @08:43PM (#607404) Journal

            Hell no I don't weep for him. I weep for the fact that he's not currently a fine paste under the wheels of some 18-wheeler somewhere maybe, but not for him specifically...

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @06:07PM (#606903)

        Your rage posts really do make me feel better after reading through TMBs slog of shit.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by GreatOutdoors on Friday December 08, @12:18AM (3 children)

    by GreatOutdoors (6408) on Friday December 08, @12:18AM (#607053)

    So instead of actually researching the issue and giving a well thought out response yourself, you posted text word for word from a few libtardian websites that you hand picked? And you want us to take you seriously?

    If you believe that $5.5m only affects the super rich, then you have obviously never owned a small business and likely have very little net worth. And on a final note, if I earned $20m dollars, what gives you the fucking right to take it from me just because I died? I already paid taxes on it, and it is mine. I'll leave it to whoever I please.

    --
    Yes, I did make a logical argument there. You should post a logical response.
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08, @02:32AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @02:32AM (#607071)

      you posted text word for word from a few libtardian websites that you hand picked

      Which is a bit more than you did.
      And no, those site are not handpicked, they carry the relevant information. Feel free to present others.

      And you want us to take you seriously?

      Us? Just exactly who are those "us"?

      then you have obviously never owned a small business and likely have very little net worth.

      Irrelevant for any argumentation on the topic.

      And on a final note, if I earned $20m dollars, what gives you the fucking right to take it from me just because I died?

      As I'm not living (nor dying) in US, you can Rest In Peace (so to speak), I'm not gonna take a cent.

      Let me end by wishing you a pleasant death experience when the time will come.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @07:46AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @07:46AM (#607123)

        I want his liver. His libertariantardian spawn can keep the filthy lucre. Oh, and I want the spleen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEi_4Cyx4Uw [youtube.com]

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 08, @09:20AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 08, @09:20AM (#607138)

          You may need to pay estate tax if he wills them to you.