April 16, 201214 yr I look at it as a an attempt by political parties and pundits to pit the opposite ends of the money scale against one another. Fair or not, the rich is often times demonized for for earning what they do. On the opposite end the poor may be criticized for not fully taking advantage of their opportunities and told they deserve a piece of the pie. That demonization of both sides and what they are is what class war is.
April 16, 201214 yr I think it is pretty simple. If you point out that over the past thirty years the vast portion of economic gain has gone to only the wealthiest in our society, that will be called class wafare. If you point out that there are some that try to take advantage of the social safety net, that will be called class warfare. In truth, our system is out of whack. Too much of the fruits of economic growth are going to too few. It isn't class warfare to point that out. At the same time, it is also legitimate to point out that there are some that take advantage of the safety net. The problem is that when we talk about it one side chooses to only see welfare cheats and one side tries to see economic success as evil. Those on this board that want to characterize asking the highest earners to pay a higher tax rate as "class warfare" are flat out wrong. The bills have to be paid by someone. Asking the portion of our society that over the past thirty years has accumulated an increasing share of the economic pie to pay at a higher rate is only common sense. In the late seventies the top one percent took about 8 percent of income. Now it is in the high twenties. That argues very strongly for tax rates on the top earners to go up. It isn't because they are evil or because they have done anything wrong, it just makes the most economic sense. Not surprisingly, I agree with just about every word. What you will get in response to the bolded is the typical "a rising tide floats all boats" adage (although it's hard to float when you don't own a dinghy). You can't convince me that the Laffer Curve isn't a bunch of hooey - heck; just look where we are. What you will also get is a cry to ratchet back spending. This I can live with, up to a point. You start leaving gaping holes in safety nets, and folks are going to fall through, crash, and ultimately cost the system (healthcare, criminal justice, etc. etc. etc.) more in the end.
April 17, 201214 yr Not surprisingly, I agree with just about every word. What you will get in response to the bolded is the typical "a rising tide floats all boats" adage (although it's hard to float when you don't own a dinghy). You can't convince me that the Laffer Curve isn't a bunch of hooey - heck; just look where we are. What you will also get is a cry to ratchet back spending. This I can live with, up to a point. You start leaving gaping holes in safety nets, and folks are going to fall through, crash, and ultimately cost the system (healthcare, criminal justice, etc. etc. etc.) more in the end. I don't disagree with a rise in taxes for the upper crust, so to speak. I've shared this in the past, but my support of that increase stands only if there is also a cut in spending. I see our economic condition right now as a two-way street--a need for increased revenue & also reduced spending. I'm not sure we can get out of this without both.
April 17, 201214 yr ... I'm not sure we can get out of this without both. Its not 'both'. History shows that Federal tax receipts are tied to GDP in a very narrow range - regardless of marginal rates. The 'rich' used to pay 90% top rate, now they pay 35%. Guess what - revenue was around 19% of GDP in both cases. Hauser's law - see here. Any expectation that actual received revenues will go up in any appreciable means is folly. So the problem must be addressed on the spending side - period. And its not just spending - the Big 3 are HHS, Social Security/Medicare and Interest on the Debt. Every other department in the Federal government - including military - goes down in actual real spending. At least that is the current plan. Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security or Interest that we owe China and the Fed - which one gets cut? That is the question. Its the question that no politician - nor us the people - what to deal with.
April 17, 201214 yr The Buffett rule if passed would only bring in 47 billion in ten years. Obamas budget would increase the debt by another 6.7 trillion over ten years.. Drastic cuts need to accompany any increases in taxes or it's just a political ploy that accomplishes nothing.
April 17, 201214 yr The Buffett rule if passed would only bring in 47 billion in ten years. Obamas budget would increase the debt by another 6.7 trillion over ten years.. Drastic cuts need to accompany any increases in taxes or it's just a political ploy that accomplishes nothing. Drastic Cuts where? Welfare is only 13% of the budget. The largest single budget item is defense spending at 25%. Social Security adds nothing to the debt at this point, why does it always get included (not in your post, but one above)?
April 17, 201214 yr CNN/ORC poll: Most Americans say tax system favors wealthy – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
April 17, 201214 yr Drastic Cuts where? Welfare is only 13% of the budget. The largest single budget item is defense spending at 25%. Social Security adds nothing to the debt at this point, why does it always get included (not in your post, but one above)?You sure about that... 2011 ($ are in billions) Receipts - $2,303B Individual - $1,092 - 47% SS / SS Insurance - $819 - 36% Corp - $181 - 8% Other - $139 - 6% Excise - $72 - 3% Spending - $3,598B Medicare / Medicaid - $835 - 23% SS - $725 - 20% Defense - $700 - 19% Discretionary - $646 - 13% Other -$465 - 13% Interest - $227 - 6% United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So you say SS and Medicare add nothing to the debt but in 2011 the receipts for those only totaled $819B while the spending totaled $1,560B, almost double.
April 17, 201214 yr So is a "class war" restricted to economic classes? Or any class (e.g. women)?You mean like paying the men that work for you 18% more than the women that work for you?
April 17, 201214 yr So is a "class war" restricted to economic classes? Or any class (e.g. women)? Obviously it can be any class but the most common usage is the economic class.
April 17, 201214 yr Author So is a "class war" restricted to economic classes? Or any class (e.g. women)? Good question.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.