The "Class Warfare" Canard
30 Aug 2011, 11:19 am
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).
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.
30 Aug 2011, 1:38 pm
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.
30 Aug 2011, 1:38 pm
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.
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.
30 Aug 2011, 1:44 pm
People are paid for working or are unemployed based on a set of rules decided at the top, a game rigged to favour the already powerful. This is not the word of God. It's not immoral to demand changes to those rules and also to have a tax code that reverses to a point the damage caused by the rigging of the game. They claim it's the Invisible Hand of the Market which is their God but it's no god, and it's not just the Invisible Hand that decides how the products of society are divvied up.
30 Aug 2011, 2:36 pm
Also, if the upper class owners and controllers have a problem with higher taxes, then they should stop milking their enterprises and invest the proceeds into the businesses instead. An idea seems to have come up that it's anti-freedom and insulting to use policy to get rich people to "do the right thing" as they're virtuous by definition we're told, using the levers of power to encourage behaviour is only for the lower classes who we are told require more such measures as they're failures, we're told and must be reminded of their failings and administered corrections.
30 Aug 2011, 7:23 pm
Class: here is some supplemental material for you.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart- ... s-warfare/
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
30 Aug 2011, 7:23 pm
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.
If it is indeed true that 51% does not pay any federal income tax........then that points to much more then 49% having to pay the federal income tax. Why should 51% be below the cut off line for paying income taxes. something does not add up...and trying to shift the tax burden more onto the lower class and poor would certianly not solve the issue. Something is off balance and it seems whatever it is, is in favor of the very wealthy and those with power. And they cannot very well cut all the federal programs to help the low class and poor.......well they could but it would not look good and people would be pretty upset about it.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
30 Aug 2011, 7:44 pm
It's funny how so many free marketers claim to be conservative Christians, and yet they put their faith actually in this ephemeral thing they call the invisible hand of the market, which they believe is all good, all powerful, and all knowing.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
30 Aug 2011, 9:36 pm
It's funny how so many free marketers claim to be conservative Christians, and yet they put their faith actually in this ephemeral thing they call the invisible hand of the market, which they believe is all good, all powerful, and all knowing.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The so-called invisible hand is the underlying negative feedback control that lends dynamic stability to the market (most of the time, anyway). All negative feedback control has an invisible aspect.
ruveyn
30 Aug 2011, 10:20 pm
With matters of such bizarre truths of American Oligarchical Opinions, it is often challenged, even by near-death "peasants" with "Dead Peasant Life Policies", that many Kafkanian witnessed stances couldn't ever have been plausibly entertained or expressed by others. Much like Rousseau being blamed for creating the alleged "myth" of the famous quote of "Let Them Eat Cake".
I'll try again to get Uncle GodBucks to lend me his Learjet 60, so I can fly myself across this great land to the Barnes Hospital, one that has never turned anyone away, unlike these California hospitals that are well known for dumping invalids onto the nearest skid row. But, I'm worried that he is so interested in my safety that so much luxury would prove detrimental to my state of health, and epileptics should have the respect not to weigh any transport down in his view.
For now I'm limited to walking, but as predestined fate had it, I did avoid the opportunity of the Reverend Jim Jones' "someplace else". Those free tickets on the HMS Titanic long ago demonstrated the fallacious value of "the simple solution of just moving someplace else you like better" too.
Yes, I know, "RESPONSIBILITY" is the end of the chain for the dog-leash of freedom according to the masters, but this near-death peasant doesn't think it was Atlas who Shrugged when Greenspan placed the miraculous $$$Dollar-Sign$$$ Death Wreath during Ayn Rand's services. Maybe Bork still has his autographed copy of Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" for you to read, it is so "patriotic" when mixed with the devil quoting scripture through emergent salamanders. Uncle GodBuck's greatest fear is that I'll still be around with my epileptic self to pen his Gospel without his review before he's placed in his new Great American Modernist Taj Mahal.
The Godesses will protect the Golden Ass of the best richest few:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ml?start=1
The invisible part is the visible part where people don't want to look into what's in the box of
incoming complaints.
Tadzio
P.S.: Where did that CitiBank report on Wealth Distribution of the Plutonomy go????
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/20 ... nomy-memo/
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
30 Aug 2011, 10:37 pm
It's funny how so many free marketers claim to be conservative Christians, and yet they put their faith actually in this ephemeral thing they call the invisible hand of the market, which they believe is all good, all powerful, and all knowing.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The so-called invisible hand is the underlying negative feedback control that lends dynamic stability to the market (most of the time, anyway). All negative feedback control has an invisible aspect.
ruveyn
From the way the market's invisible hand is talked about by free marketers, you'd think they were speaking about their deity. Such as the notion that the free market would have brought about integration and civil rights. These people see it as more than just mere negative feedback.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
31 Aug 2011, 6:17 am
From the way the market's invisible hand is talked about by free marketers, you'd think they were speaking about their deity. Such as the notion that the free market would have brought about integration and civil rights. These people see it as more than just mere negative feedback.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So much the worse for them (and us, too). These folks believe in magic, not physics.
ruveyn
31 Aug 2011, 7:43 am
Well, that stat is based on the growing number of people making less and less, redefining "poverty" in America (if you qualify is a matter of income for your size household....some homes have a good income but enough people to qualify as "in poverty"), the expansion of welfare programs to include people who actually have some money (believe it or not, free meals for kids in school is a welfare program and you don't have to be that poor to get it...which is a shame considering the free meal program is intended for kids from families too poor to afford to pack them a lunch for school).
The lowering or stagnating income levels for Americans is a result of downsizing, outsourcing....the whole "global economy" scam shipping all the good paying manufacturing jobs to 3rd world nations and leaving those dislocated workers scrambling for new employment (but new jobs aren't being created). Most all dislocated workers wind up taking a new job with lower pay and benefits than where they last worked.
31 Aug 2011, 12:51 pm
Nobody misread.
Why are you impugning the motives of those who disagree with your ideology? You are being lazy here. A feeling of outrage over the perceived injustice of our economic system IS NOT simply a matter of personal envy and jealousy. If it were, why do we see members of the upper-class expressing the exact same sentiments of outrage? That you personally don't believe there is any injustice present, going from your own moral framework, doesn't in any way challenge the fact that others honestly perceived injustice, regardless of their own economic standing, and may become angry over it.
Just accept that the left's perception of injustice is genuine, not merely a guise to hide personal envy and jealousy. If you won't accept that then don't expect people on the left to refrain from calling wealthy conservatives/libertarians heartless and greedy.
31 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm
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.
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, it seems to most conservatives/libertarians lump the former in with the latter. The fact that most people pay less federal income tax than what those with an income stretching into the very highest tax bracket means that most people are effectively getting a "handout". At least according to the Tea Party philosophy.
