class warfare

[Darwin333]

I jsut want to say soemthing.

Class warfare is not new in the US. It is 30 years old when divergence began. The wealthy have been waging this war for a long time. I am fed up with republicans sayign that democrats want to start class warfare. It has been started a long time ago. The difference today is that things are so out of whack that the poor people actually are realizing it now.

The wealthy started class warfare 30 years ago. Stop trying to tell poor people that we have a bad attitude about it.

End of story.

Do you really think the ubber wealthy that you are talking of actually give a shit about the attitudes of poor people?

 

[Matt1970]

By pushing for the repeal of government assistanceship programs.



Um, k. Again, the "rich" ain't going around handing out money. The % of the taxes they pay to provide many of these services is marginal at best. Strawman.

What should be looked into are programs that give money out to be able to afford things, but then not regulating how much those "things" cost. (Medicare prescription medication being a HUGE one).

That's not stealing from the poor. That is not funneling wealth to the top. That is limiting rewards for doing nothing. Exactly how much are we supposed to pay these people to sit on thier asses?

 

[lotus503]

Can you please explain to me how the rich take from the poor? Last time I checked the poor get food stamps, welfare, section 8, medicaid, earned income tax credit, free cell phones, and on and on all paid for by taxes typicly from the rich. Where is this wealth the rich take from them?

they take from the poor by lobbying government to enact laws that benefit them directly at the expense of the rest of the population.

%.05 of the population contributes to the election process, that %.05 pays to elect, and in return they get policy that favors them.

 

[lotus503]

The problem is those who can vote the money out are the very people accepting the money. Aka it will never change.

It could change if we could all put away idealogical differences and challenge it together.

But I dont suspect that will happen because divisiveness is bread in eduction, media and every other socially accessible medium.

Consolodation of media , information control and people who get paid way to much money to propagate bullshit that doesnt matter at the end of the day.

We argue over birth control, tax policy and other meaning less shit, meanwhile nothing worth a damn gets done about anything meaningful.

But I agree were fucked

 

[Matt1970]

they take from the poor by lobbying government to enact laws that benefit them directly at the expense of the rest of the population.

%.05 of the population contributes to the election process, that %.05 pays to elect, and in return they get policy that favors them.

What law is it that requires the poor pay for anything that the rich have? I am trying to find out exactly what it is that the rich are taking from the poor.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

What law is it that requires the poor pay for anything that the rich have? I am trying to find out exactly what it is that the rich are taking from the poor.

The law of the jungle. Rich people already own most of the factors of production. Poor people can't simply stop eating, working, or living to halt the transfer of even more wealth to those owners. We're knee deep in a modern serfdom with corporations as our lords.

 

[lotus503]

What law is it that requires the poor pay for anything that the rich have? I am trying to find out exactly what it is that the rich are taking from the poor.

What the Rich are taking is power, they use that power to enact laws that favor them in every single way other way.

 

[Matt1970]

Those are just BS theories backed up by zero fact. Just because the rich own what they do doesn't mean they took it from the poor. If you can't quote a specific law then what the F are we suppoised to change in Government to fix it?

 

[lotus503]

Those are just BS theories backed up by zero fact. Just because the rich own what they do doesn't mean they took it from the poor. If you can't quote a specific law then what the F are we suppoised to change in Government to fix it?

What you can change is the money used to buy influence.

While were at it get rid of all lobby money, that includes unions too, RW hate unions so its a win win.

 

[Matt1970]

What you can change is the money used to buy influence.

While were at it get rid of all lobby money, that includes unions too, RW hate unions so its a win win.

So unless you can quote some specific laws that will get changed then what is the difference. Is that going to make the rich not get as rich? How does that help the poor? It will infact hurt them as there will be less tax collected because the rich aren't as rich and then we now have less funds for government services.

 

[lotus503]

So unless you can quote some specific laws that will get changed then what is the difference. Is that going to make the rich not get as rich? How does that help the poor? It will infact hurt them as there will be less tax collected because the rich aren't as rich and then we now have less funds for government services.

Its not an issue about changing laws. You have to fix the system that enacts the laws, then address the laws.


For starters you can change the entire tax code, but that wont happen as long as lobby writes it by proxy.

The issue is systemic influence.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. Top down economic class warfare is entirely obvious as evidenced by the shift of share of national income to the tippytop, and in the erosion of the net worth & equity positions of median families.

The creation of denial as to that among the masses has been key to implementation. If it weren't for near continuous federal deficits from Reagan forward, we'd have rejected trickledown supply side fol-de-rol long ago, made whatever adjustments necessary to maintain middle class & working class income shares.

The right wing has done a remarkable job of disguising what's really happened to us over the last 30 years, which has been a massive shift of income share to the tippytop. Part of that deception has been lower tax rates for median earners & below, even to supplementing the incomes of many low earners with EITC.

This is due largely to the cumulative effects of very low taxes on investment income, with the top 1% paying ~2/3 of the effective federal tax rates they paid in 1980. Offshoring & automation play a role as well.

Had the income distribution curve of 1980 been maintained, median families would have ~40% greater incomes, and the share of the top 1% would be ~1/2 of what it is today.

Obviously, median income families would be better off paying 1980 taxes on incomes 40% larger, but Righties can't seem to figure that out, at all, but have rather been convinced that America's wealthiest are over taxed on enormously larger incomes, and that budget deficits haven't been part of the ongoing deception, along with higher regressive payroll taxes.

 

[Matt1970]

Its not an issue about changing laws. You have to fix the system that enacts the laws, then address the laws.


For starters you can change the entire tax code, but that wont happen as long as lobby writes it by proxy.

The issue is systemic influence.

What is changing the tax code supposed to do except expand Government? 50% of the nation pays little or no Federal Tax anyways. Who is this supposed to benefit?

 

[Matt1970]

The creation of denial as to that among the masses has been key to implementation. If it weren't for near continuous federal deficits from Reagan forward, we'd have rejected trickledown supply side fol-de-rol long ago, made whatever adjustments necessary to maintain middle class & working class income shares.

The right wing has done a remarkable job of disguising what's really happened to us over the last 30 years, which has been a massive shift of income share to the tippytop. Part of that deception has been lower tax rates for median earners & below, even to supplementing the incomes of many low earners with EITC.

This is due largely to the cumulative effects of very low taxes on investment income, with the top 1% paying ~2/3 of the effective federal tax rates they paid in 1980. Offshoring & automation play a role as well.

Had the income distribution curve of 1980 been maintained, median families would have ~40% greater incomes, and the share of the top 1% would be ~1/2 of what it is today.

Obviously, median income families would be better off paying 1980 taxes on incomes 40% larger, but Righties can't seem to figure that out, at all, but have rather been convinced that America's wealthiest are over taxed on enormously larger incomes, and that budget deficits haven't been part of the ongoing deception, along with higher regressive payroll taxes.

Taxes pre-1980 were 70-90% on the upper tax bracket and we still ran deficits and had a lower class. What you don't seem to understand is that the middle class can't have a greater share of the wealth because as soon as they do they are upper class. The rich will always be the rich, the middle class will always be the middle class and the poor will always be the poor. Tax code has never taken from the poor, rather the opposite as the vast majority are on Gov Assistance. (Tax on the rich pays for welfare) What you are basically saying is that what the lower class gets from the Government isn’t high enough because those at the top are earning more.

 

[dmcowen674]

Do you really think the ubber wealthy that you are talking of actually give a shit about the attitudes of poor people?

They will when the poor start storming their doors

Revolution baby :thumbsup:

 

[alkemyst]

I jsut want to say soemthing.

Class warfare is not new in the US. It is 30 years old when divergence began. The wealthy have been waging this war for a long time. I am fed up with republicans sayign that democrats want to start class warfare. It has been started a long time ago. The difference today is that things are so out of whack that the poor people actually are realizing it now.

The wealthy started class warfare 30 years ago. Stop trying to tell poor people that we have a bad attitude about it.

End of story.

Class warfare started way more than 30 years ago. The poor just now have the internet to witness it without leaving their chairs.

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxes pre-1980 were 70-90% on the upper tax bracket and we still ran deficits and had a lower class. What you don't seem to understand is that the middle class can't have a greater share of the wealth because as soon as they do they are upper class. The rich will always be the rich, the middle class will always be the middle class and the poor will always be the poor. Tax code has never taken from the poor, rather the opposite as the vast majority are on Gov Assistance. (Tax on the rich pays for welfare) What you are basically saying is that what the lower class gets from the Government isn’t high enough because those at the top are earning more.

Prior to Reagan, we ran minor deficits in the post-WW2 period, basically enough to provide liquidity to a growing population. More people need more money in circulation if deflation is to be avoided.

The rest, I'm afraid, is gobbledegook. The middle class is obviously the middle, but that can occur at varying levels of prosperity, depending on how national income is distributed. When working & middle class people took in a greater share of national income, they could afford to pay higher taxes. As their share shrank, their ability to do so shrank with it, even to the point of govt subsidies to somewhat maintain their lifestyles, along with a huge expansion of credit, too.

What we're seeing now is an attempt to withdraw those subsidies while creating even greater after tax income disparity.

Top down economic class warfare has always existed, it's just that the middle & working class did a better job of defending themselves with a variety of mechanisms in the post-WW2 period shaped by the New Deal, then turned stupid in Ronnie worship.

Numbers from here-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

[Matt1970]

Prior to Reagan, we ran minor deficits in the post-WW2 period, basically enough to provide liquidity to a growing population. More people need more money in circulation if deflation is to be avoided.

The rest, I'm afraid, is gobbledegook. The middle class is obviously the middle, but that can occur at varying levels of prosperity, depending on how national income is distributed. When working & middle class people took in a greater share of national income, they could afford to pay higher taxes. As their share shrank, their ability to do so shrank with it, even to the point of govt subsidies to somewhat maintain their lifestyles, along with a huge expansion of credit, too.

What we're seeing now is an attempt to withdraw those subsidies while creating even greater after tax income disparity.

Top down economic class warfare has always existed, it's just that the middle & working class did a better job of defending themselves with a variety of mechanisms in the post-WW2 period shaped by the New Deal, then turned stupid in Ronnie worship.

Numbers from here-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

No, there should have been absolutely no Deficits with a 70% upper tax rate. Any no tax rate will make all the poor no longer poor.

 

[lotus503]

No, there should have been absolutely no Deficits with a 70% upper tax rate. Any no tax rate will make all the poor no longer poor.

Republicans should stop starting wars off the books and giving tax breaks they cant pay for.

 

[alkemyst]

No, there should have been absolutely no Deficits with a 70% upper tax rate. Any no tax rate will make all the poor no longer poor.

You dont understand supply and demand.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, there should have been absolutely no Deficits with a 70% upper tax rate. Any no tax rate will make all the poor no longer poor.

Pointless opinionating. I merely cite what actually happened. 70% was the top marginal rate, while the effective rate on the top 1% averaged 34%.

I haven't referenced the poor, at all, either, but rather median families & the working class, for whom a larger share of national income was and would be in their favor. Even with EITC & their federal tax rates slashed to nothing, they've still lost ground in the massive income shift to the top enabled by a variety of factors, favorable tax treatment for the wealthy obviously playing a large part.

 

[piasabird]

There is only about 5-6% of people that could be considered wealthy. If you think all republicans are wealthy, you are an idiot.