The "Class Warfare" Canard

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe for now.

I find the accusation of envy is more than a tad off and rather dismissive/derisive if I might add. It sounds just like a GOP talking point. Also, it is BS to dismiss the diminishing returns argument for progressive taxation as "emotional". "Well they can afford it" can be seen as a pragmatic statement as one cannot bleed tax revenue from a rock.

IF class warfare is to be fought on an economic basis, the proles have no weapons.

Several people seem to have misread my statement, so I'll put out a blanket clarification in lieu of answering each individual post.

Merely arguing for progressive taxation is not "class warfare", using an emotional argument that relies on jealousy and envy instead to whip up ill will towards the better off in order to get people to resent their success is. It's arguing Nancy Grace style, get people worked up enough and they won't care what the facts are as long as the object of their ire is punished, or not in that case.

Well the argument that 'the rich can afford it' is not all that emotional nor is it based upon jealousy and envy...you think I want what those wealthy 1% have....well you are wrong.

But it's not an argument either. So what? They can afford a lot of things, that doesn't prove or disprove anything either way. Some people think that's enough though, "because they can afford it" is all the convincing they need.

That depends. Do they want progressive taxation to finance infrastructure, defense, education, and economic security? Or do they want progressive taxation because they have somehow rationalized that they deserve more handouts from the government simply because they are poor and others aren't? The former is not class warfare and is motivated by civic responsibility even if their plan isn't sound, but the latter is class warfare no matter how they try to disguise it.

Well yeah, I'm just trying to stick to the argument itself so as to confuse the least amount of people. You can see how well that's been working for me.

Hmm, I wonder if any British rich guys are in the market for guns? Looks like a growth market to me.

Well actually it is an argument.......they can afford to pay taxes more than the lower class and poor can, its not that freaking hard. But then you have jack offs complaining about how we need to shift the tax burden more onto the lower class...what the hell will that help....if they want to shift the tax burden they should shift it in the direction of the rich because they have more and can thus contribute a bit more.

Don't like taxes well find another country to live in then....or petition the government.

Other than that, it is sick what goes on in this country......people work their asses off and still cannot afford to make much of a living...people who don't work their asses have things handed to them, people with mental illnesses and disorders are overlooked much of the time...especially if they happen to be homeless....while a few piggies fly around in private jets, drinking expensive wine and figuring out how best to continue exploiting humanity to their benifit.

I know no one probably cares to do this but I really do recommend watching the documentary The 1% just so you all can see what sort of attitude that 1% has.........then come tell me they are all a bunch of honest hardworking americans who 'earned' what they have. I know of wealthy people who did earn what they have......my friends family, so I have nothing against them...but the ones with a lot of power tend to be the most deranged.

I've heard the congressmen from my own state repeating that bullflop about the lucky ducks who don't pay any federal income tax just because they are poor. Makes me want to punch them in their crotches.

Getting federal income taxes from them wouldn't increase revenue substantially, and would cause a lot of pain and suffering.

Might be bad form to refer to such people as "lucky ducks," but the point is valid. About 51% of the population does not pay any federal income tax due to income level and other factors (such as the Earned Income Credit which can negate a tax liability otherwise owed).

Now, if you don't pay any federal income tax, how demanding should you be for more and more government programs? Do you not realize that since YOU are not paying for it, and about 51% of everyone else is not paying for it, how fair is it to demand more knowing the remaining 49% ARE paying for it?

We are in an interesting place as a nation. Everyone has a "right" to vote, but now more than half of all potential voters do not pay into the system but will respond to promises to get stuff back from the system.

From day one, democracies have failed because once people realize they can just vote for the person promising the biggest piece of the pie, they respond to grandiose promises (hence why the USA is a republic and not a democracy). Would you want government to improve your life with $20 Trillion in new spending (which must be borrowed) knowing it may likely destroy the nation for your kids and grand kids? Some would say "yes." Some would say "no."

The number of people who either do not care about long-term consequences or don't consider them is growing to a frighteningly large number.

Um... that is an argument, though. At least, it is once combined with the obvious fact that our government is not taking in enough tax revenue to cover its bills, and needs to make up the difference somewhere.

Lies. That number was 47% last year. It has never once been over 50%. The peak level was 49% under George W Bush.


They still pay taxes. They still pay sales taxes and social security withholding, both of which are regressive taxes. And this is an idiotic, asinine assessment of the situation anyways. Obviously people who are benefited by social welfare programs are not paying for those programs. The whole point of those programs is that these people are not in a position where they can get by on their own.


And here we get into part of the motivation for your lying distortion of the numbers. More demonization of the poor. This is probably why you think arguments for progressive taxation are motivated by "class warfare" or "resentment." You're projecting.


Those two terms are not mutually exclusive. We are both a republic and a democracy. Learn real political theory rather than BS right-wing talking points.

That number increased under Bush. When you cut taxes and increase tax credits, you put more people into that category.

The goose that laid the golden egg in a consumer economy is...the consumers. Without them it doesnt work. If the poor and middle class have insufficient wages to consume, they borrow to consume, which is unsustainable. The wealthy alone cannot buy enough to power 70% of the economy. Class warfare is being waged and won by the wealthy but in the process they are eroding the engine of their wealth in this country; people with disposable income.

Yes, I sure was offended when the Wall Street Journal coined the term in their November 20th 2002 editorial. Which, you may recall, was during our previous recession.

I was unemployed at the time.



I agree, they should only demand basic services, like food, shelter, and health care.

To hell with them if they want a massive tax break for locating themselves in a particular city or want to protect their business from foreign powers.

The "class warfare" crowd is very funny. When justifying the fact that all the new wealth created in the last 30 years has gone to the top 5% or so, they say, "well, the lower classes don't see rich people, they can't tell if they're flying First Class or jetting around in a private jet, they're just so remote, it doesn't affect them at all". Then they claim that the lower classes are envious. Well! Which is it?

In fact, their first argument is closer to the truth, that they are remote. What lower class people resent is the fact that so much wealth has been created yet they must struggle for no reason, really. Most jealousy and envy exists within classes. The Right exploits this with the attacks on unionised workers and public sector workers. Remember that Homer Simpson hates Flanders far more than he hates Mr. Burns.

As for the "lucky duckies", income tax originally was levied only on the wealthy and the tax brackets were at higher levels when adjusted for inflation. The top bracket is at an obscenely low level today. They clearly didn't have this awful bean-counting mentality (each individual must get precisely what they paid for or else it's stealing) in those times and also they understood that the value of one's first dollar is far greater than is the value of their millionth dollar. Businesses aren't taxed on the income they make to keep the business going, why should people be taxed on money required for bare survival?

Last edited by xenon13 on 30 Aug 2011, 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.