Just Whose "class Warefare" Is It?

[charles brough]

Is it "class warfare" for the middle class to want tax loopholes closed so that the rich who sometimes manage to pay less than that paid by individualos in the less prosperous classes? Or is it an upswell among the rich and the deluded souls in the Tea Party that actually think they are going to become rich that they are superior to the helpless, sick, homeless and exploited?

[RonHughes]

Ten percent of the population pay seventy percent of the total revenue of the government. Guess who that ten percent is, it sure as hell ain't the poor. Fifty percent don't pay a single dime in federal income tax. Now tell us how that is not class warfare.

[charles brough]

Ten percent of the population pay seventy percent of the total revenue of the government. Guess who that ten percent is, it sure as hell ain't the poor. Fifty percent don't pay a single dime in federal income tax. Now tell us how that is not class warfare.

 

Yet we know Warren Buffet paid ziltch taxes and the same with General Electric. How do we explain the discrepancies? No doubt the rich pay more sales tax because they buy more, especially luxuries. And surely you agree that the dsparity between the rich and the poor has grown much larger at a fast pace. The affluent class shows little interest in narrowing that. Their stand against restoring the Clinton tax rate. Does it mean they want the gap to continue to widen? And surely there is a consensus among the rich that the other classes have become additcted to welfare entitlements So they intend to deprive them of it. That is class warefare. . .

 

I might add that many voters backing the Republican Tea Party position are not rich. They are those who are still suckered by the so-called "American Dream" and have actually been duped into believing they will become millionares themselves some day and, so, think from the upper class perspective.

[RonHughes]

What we need is jobs. With that said I'll ask when was the last time you went to work for a poor person? What is the the most dangerous thing to a democracy,when the voting public realizes they can vote themselves gifts from the national treasure, 14,000,000,000,000 in debt.

[Deepwater6]

The problem from my point of view is, government global hand-outs and subsidies.

 

Yes we have reason to protect our interests around the world, but to borrow money from China only to send it to (xyz) country in the hope that we can influence their government is not doing us much good anymore.

 

Yes we have an reason to provide subsidies to US firms, but the likes of the large oil companies, and large farming companies??? This is a product of large influential PAC's in the real world this is called extortion. The government needs to help small and midsized company's.

 

The trickle down theory is for the suckers who are naive enough to follow Sarah Palin like groupies of a reality show. The GOP is putting their dislike with Obama before the American people. George Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times, and we all saw what happened when Obama tried it once. I also hope that all these tea party advocates sign a pledge not to take SS since they think it's a Democratic ponzi scheme.

[Fluxus]

Ten percent of the population pay seventy percent of the total revenue of the government. Guess who that ten percent is, it sure as hell ain't the poor.

That's by AGI, and the top 10% earn $113k or more per year. People who earn between $33k and $112k make up another 28%.

 

Half the US has an AGI of $33k or less per year. These individuals often do not pay federal taxes, especially if they have dependents. Those who work have to pony up for payroll taxes; everyone pays sales taxes, which obviously hit the poor much harder than the wealthy. Those who can afford to pay rent are contributing to their landlords' real estate taxes.

 

 

Fifty percent don't pay a single dime in federal income tax. Now tell us how that is not class warfare.

'kay

 

This bottom 50% also only has 2.5% of the US's total wealth. The top 1% has 33% of the US's wealth and owns 50% of stocks; the remainder of the top 10% has another 37% of the total US wealth. Most workers' pay has stagnated, while corporate profits and CEO pay has increased significantly. The US has the worst disparity between the poor and the wealthy since the Great Depression, and much of this is due to recent tax cuts for the wealthy. The wealthy have decreased their tax liabilities fairly steadily since the Reagan years. There is greater income inequality in the US than in most other industrialized nations. (http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4)

 

It's rather obvious that the wealthy in the US are not getting a raw deal; they've steadily improved their lot, and reduced their tax liabilities, since the mid 1980s.

[Fluxus]

The problem from my point of view is, government global hand-outs and subsidies.

FYI, the State Department, including all its embassies and diplomatic missions, only made up 1.6% of the 2010 budget.

 

The DOD got 20%, and half that or less was for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 59% of the budget that year was non-discretionary -- Social Security (21%), Medicare (18%), Medicaid (14%), interest on the federal debt (5%).

 

Everything the Federal government does, aside from DOD, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest made up only 20% of that year's budget. That includes education, national parks, DOJ, NASA, NSF, the judiciary branch, HHS, DOT....

 

Redistribution of wealth via government services that individuals didn't pay into is a big chunk -- maybe 40%? Possibly less, since the wealthy still collect Social Security and get Medicare.

[CraigD]

Yet we know Warren Buffet paid ziltch taxes and the same with General Electric.

According to the Buffet’s much-discussed 8/14/2011 NYT OpEd Stop Coddling the Super-Rich, last year, he paid 17.4% of his taxable income in federal income taxes. He goes on to note that the other 20 people in his office, who have much lower incomes than him, pay between 33 to 44%, averaging 36%.

 

While I agree with Buffet, Barak Obama, and the majority of Americans that the US tax code should be changed to eliminate this disparity, I think it’s important not to promulgate false claims in our zeal to argue this position. In short, think, then check, then speak or write. :naughty:

 

How do we explain the discrepancies?

The discrepancy/disparity can be explained by examining the tax code.

 

There appear to me to be 3 major reason for the disparity:

• The OASDI tax is regressive, currently 6.2% of annual earnings up to $106,800, 0% for earning above this max
  
• Higher income people tend to transfer more of their earnings into investment, which are 100% deductible rather hold them as cash (savings and checking accounts)
  
• Higher income people tend to take greater business loss deductions from their income
  

 

No doubt the rich pay more sales tax because they buy more, especially luxuries. And surely you agree that the dsparity between the rich and the poor has grown much larger at a fast pace.

I do, because there is much credible data showing this, and none contradicting it.

 

The affluent class shows little interest in narrowing that. Their stand against restoring the Clinton tax rate. Does it mean they want the gap to continue to widen? And surely there is a consensus among the rich that the other classes have become additcted to welfare entitlements So they intend to deprive them of it.

Do you have evidence of this, Charles? Actual statement by rich people of this position you claim is a consensus among the rich?

 

I’ve not seen such evidence, and have seen much evidence, such as Buffet’s OpEd above, that the consensus among the rich is almost exactly the opposite.

 

I have seen evidence of such a position among people seeking to gain and hold public office, especially Republican Party members, especially those who identify themselves with the informal “Tea Party”. From this, I conclude that the position is not one of economic principle nor class identity, but a political tactic intended to win the approval of voters – and a successful one.

 

In short, I don’t believe the controversy about taxing the rich or the poor more or less is class warfare, but the usual struggle for power among politicians.

 

I might add that many voters backing the Republican Tea Party position are not rich. They are those who are still suckered by the so-called "American Dream" and have actually been duped into believing they will become millionares themselves some day and, so, think from the upper class perspective.

It’s demonstrably true that many voters who support Republican candidates are poor, and puzzlingly, beneficiaries of the welfare programs these candidates speak against.

 

While I’ve entertained the idea Charles expresses – that through simply stupid, and believe that they will all soon become rich themselves, or stupid and selfish, believing that just they, not other like-minded poor, will strike it rich – I don’t think this thinking is their true motivation. Rather, I believe they have what Lakoff called in his 1996 Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think a strict father morality, leading them to believe that they will benefit most if the rich and super-rich are, to borrow Buffet’s word, coddled, because the rich will care and provide for them, the poor. According to Lakoff’s theory, with which I agree, people with a strict father morality simply believe this on an emotional level, and act politically accordingly.

 

I believe strict father morality is insidious and bad for science and reason in general, because it encourages people to trust those in positions of power, even when those people make obviously false statements. Science and reason thrive when objective truth is favored over the opinions of the powerful.

[charles brough]

I think it’s important not to promulgate false claims in our zeal to argue this position. In short, think, then check, then speak or write. :naughty:

 

I am amazed that you would so brutally chastize me for writing what you then re-wrote in only more detail!:blink:

 

. . . the majority of Americans (believe) that the US tax code should be changed to eliminate this disparity,

The discrepancy/disparity can be explained by examining the tax code.

 

No need to examine it. Aren't your familiar with the number of times Congress has "reformed" the tax code and how it manages to be worse each time? We both know why!

 

Do you have evidence of actual statement by rich people of this position you claim is a consensus among the rich?

It seems to me that what people say is not often what they really believe and what they really believe is usually determined by their position in society. Wouldn't you agree that most Republicans are either business people or religious conservatives? And that most liberals are in the low and middle income class?

 

Buffet's way of thinking does not represent the affluent class.

 

I have seen evidence of such a (classist) position among people seeking to gain and hold public office, especially Republican Party members, especially those who identify themselves with the informal “Tea Party”. From this, I conclude that the position is not one of economic principle nor class identity, but a political tactic intended to win the approval of voters – and a successful one.

 

What are you saying there? Is it that our "public servants" are classist because it gets votes or campaign contributions? Or that it helps the Tea Party cause to give the impression of classism? And that a "classism tactic" would actually bring more votes? I cannot imagine expressions of contempt for the "lower classes" would bring votes to anyone.

 

It’s demonstrably true that many voters who support Republican candidates are poor, and puzzlingly, beneficiaries of the welfare programs these candidates speak against.

 

Yes, the Republican Party relies on a mass of poor militant believers of the old faith and those who believe "anyone can become rich." Without this support, the Party would be much more liberal.

 

I believe they have what Lakoff called in his 1996 Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think a strict father morality, leading them to believe that they will benefit most if the rich and super-rich are, to borrow Buffet’s word, coddled, because the rich will care and provide for them, the poor. According to Lakoff’s theory, with which I agree, people with a strict father morality simply believe this on an emotional level, and act politically accordingly.

 

I believe strict father morality is insidious and bad for science and reason in general, because it encourages people to trust those in positions of power, even when those people make obviously false statements. Science and reason thrive when objective truth is favored over the opinions of the powerful.

 

I agree that this trait is growing. Societies evolve in a sort of life cycle and when the liberal, more democratic phase has run its course and begins to deteriorate, people begin to long for authority, for a knight in armour to come and save them, to take over and return them to the "good old days." That age does conflict with science because it generally involves a regression back to the old and less advanced founding faith.

[RonHughes]

No one on this planet uses lies and innuendo more than a liberal.

[JMJones0424]

Ron, without attempting to support your latest claim, your latest post is nothing more than a flippant remark which does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation. It is clearly in violation of forum rules, and it is not the type of discourse we are trying to promote here. If you have nothing of any value to say, please refrain from posting. There are numerous other places on the internet available for you to post unsupported inflammatory opinion, please keep that trash out of here.

[charles brough]

FYI, the State Department, including all its embassies and diplomatic missions, only made up 1.6% of the 2010 budget.

 

The DOD got 20%, and half that or less was for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 59% of the budget that year was non-discretionary -- Social Security (21%), Medicare (18%), Medicaid (14%), interest on the federal debt (5%). Redistribution of wealth via government services that individuals didn't pay into is a big chunk -- maybe 40%? Possibly less, since the wealthy still collect Social Security and get Medicare

 

Everything the Federal government does, aside from DOD, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest made up only 20% of that year's budget. That includes education, national parks, DOJ, NASA, NSF, the judiciary branch, HHS, DOT....

 

.

 

Agricultural subsidies alone amount to over 30 billion a year. That is just part of the wasteful subsidies that the corporations have bought off Congress into passing. There are a long list of military bases in the US that the Military itself wanted to close in order to save money. Corporate interest that supplied the bases lobbyed against it and so we still have all those unnecessary bases. People are dying in hospitals because of a shortage of certain drugs. But the drug industry lobbying has legislation into effect prohibing the government, Medicare and Midicade from buying drugs abroad. I myself has had to engage a laboratory to make a drug to refile my prescriptions because the drug companies had stopped producing it. And don't forget all the corruption and paying off of the Taliban by US companies contracted to rebuild in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Why did you include Social Security above? You even state that It pays for itself. In fact, it helps support the government because what we citizens put into it is all borrowed from in rder to pay subsidies and for corporations hired by government. And as you say, even the rich get back the money they pay into social security---which they do not need.

 

Your point seems to be that all the needed and worthy expenses of government only take up 20% of the federal budget and that the rest is luxury, and unneeded welfare waste. Is that it? And that it is better to serve all the corporate functions I mentioned above and leave the homeless, abandoned children, aged, sick and mentally handicapped roam the streets begging for food? Is that your solution to the huge deficit the last Republican president recklessly put on us with his tax cut and the adding of two wars which have only served to alienate Islam and which we may never be able to get out of?

 

Have a cup of tea on me!

 

How about sour-grape tea?:angry:

[geko]

There's no such thing as class warfare. Marx was confused. There is only harmony of interests.

 

Also, condemning the level of the rich and poor divide whilst also supporting inflation is contradictory because inflation perpetuates the increasing divide. You can condemn and/or support only one or the other whilst remaining coherent.

[charles brough]

There's no such thing as class warfare. Marx was confused. There is only harmony of interests.

 

Also, condemning the level of the rich and poor divide whilst also supporting inflation is contradictory because inflation perpetuates the increasing divide. You can condemn and/or support only one or the other whilst remaining coherent.

 

I do agree with you that Marx was confused, and that does include what he wrote about class warfare. He only superficially understood what happens. But I don't understand how you can say all the different classes have only a harmony of interest. Wouldn't you say that a disharmony of interests played a part in the French Revolution, the American revolution, what is going on in "the Arab Spring," even in the Bolshevic Revolution?

 

For sure, it is counter productive to support serious inflation! For generations the cost of living in the US has run only about 3% per year. That has so far worked very well. Manufacturers are encourage to obrtain supplies and produce knowing it will cost more later. This encourages hiring and that encourages consumption, then manufacturing etc.

 

But if the Tea Party makes us clamp down, shrink debt and cut government spending, prices tend to stop rising and even fall. Then the opposite occurs. We head into a recession or depression.

 

Would deflation and depression diminish the growing divide between the rich and poor? Perhaps, but that seems like a brutal way to achieve it.

[geko]

Wouldn't you say that a disharmony of interests played a part in the French Revolution, the American revolution, what is going on in "the Arab Spring," even in the Bolshevic Revolution?

 

It's just two opposing groups using force to impose their own interests. It doesn't mean a harmony of interests doesn't exist.

 

For sure, it is counter productive to support serious inflation!

 

Since money tends towards the higher factors of production quicker than the lower factors of production the higher factors of production receive a higher quantity. If we increase the supply of money we increase the ratio of this difference. You don't get one without the other due to everyone being a consumer so no, asking for inflation and not an increasing divide is contradictory.

[charles brough]

It's just two opposing groups using force to impose their own interests. It doesn't mean a harmony of interests doesn't exist.

 

I guess you mean that in all revolutions, the common interest is the welfare of all even though the different classes are focussed on the interests of their own class above that of the other. In other words, everyone should have the same idea of what is good for all but they often do not. Is that why Republicans have a different idea of what is best for the country than do the Democrats? Where would I find "the harmony of interests" that our different economic classes have that they don't agree on? Are you only saying that the different economic classes should but don't exercise a common interest?

 

Since money tends towards the higher factors of production quicker than the lower factors of production the higher factors of production receive a higher quantity. If we increase the supply of money we increase the ratio of this difference. You don't get one without the other due to everyone being a consumer so no, asking for inflation and not an increasing divide is contradictory.

 

I cannot understand what that says. would you clearify it for me?

[Fluxus]

Since money tends towards the higher factors of production quicker than the lower factors of production the higher factors of production receive a higher quantity. If we increase the supply of money we increase the ratio of this difference. You don't get one without the other due to everyone being a consumer so no, asking for inflation and not an increasing divide is contradictory.

I'm not aware of any correlation between inflation and income/wealth disparity.

 

We didn't see a massive jump in inequality in the US during the 70s, and inflation has been low during the recent increase. Most of the increase in the disparity was due to the Bush tax cuts, increases in executive pay, the run-up in stocks and (until recently) home value. See the Business Insider link I posted earlier for a little more detail.

 

And yes, it's very clear that different socioeconomic groups can clash, sometimes violently, over interests. Marx's analysis of the operations of capital were also rather insightful, especially in the context of the rapidly industrializing world he lived in. The Marxian concepts of the world definitively and teleologically towards an inevitable shift from capitalism to some type of post-capitalist socialism is almost certainly wrong, but doesn't change the fact that especially in an era where capitalists were employing 13 year olds to perform dangerous labor, used Pinkertons to bludgeon workers into line, when workers overthrew entire governments, or when governments used social class as an excuse to commit genocide (e.g. Khmer Rouge), there was clearly something that we could call "class warfare."

 

The absurdity here is in the idea that clawing back tax breaks for the wealthy is somehow equal to inciting a Bolshevik revolution. It's hyperbolic rhetoric uttered by people with no sense of proportion, and who choose not to adopt rational expressions of their opinions.