DCUM Class warfare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the million dollar home thread, OP? Pleaze post.

Not OP, but unsure how you could have missed it.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/191239.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:02 Both jobs are necessary, but it doesn't mean that they have any equal economic value. Should a cardiac surgeon spends many years in school and residency make the same as a plumber or a nanny or a cashier? All are needed professions, but the cost (in terms of both time and money) are not the same.

BTW--I can and have done my own plumbing. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon. It just doesn't make economic sense for me to do my own plumbing repairs anymore.

Duh! The question is not whether they should have different incomes. The question is: how different should their incomes be? Should the poor plumber (actually, the richester person in my neighborhood is a plumber, so this is actually a bad example, but anyway...) have to live in a neighborhood with no police? Should his kids have to go to schools with 40 children per class? Should he not be able to buy a home?

NP. I agree. Although the plumber/trash collector/teacher has less schooling and should make less, its an issue of how much of a difference.

From wikipedia...
Just about every socio-economic indicator shows that the distribution of income in the United States is becoming increasingly unequal. In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968. Looking back even further to 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10:06 I have worked in the private sector and for the federal government. From my experience, the vast majority of federal workers (at least in my prior agency) were grossly overpaid. The work habits and work product would never cut it in the private sector. Our tax dollars used to "create jobs" that would be unsustainable in the private sector.

In my agency, the vast majority of Federal workers are grossly underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts, but they stay because the work is very rewarding. Nothing frustrates me more than when my friends in Big Law are surfing the Internet because they don't have enough to do while I'm working my ass off because I don't have a secretary or a paralegal on which to offload my work. Let's get real: There are hardworkers in the public sector and there are hardworkers in the private sector. People need to stop using Federal employees as a punching bag.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I agree. Although the plumber/trash collector/teacher has less schooling and should make less, its an issue of how much of a difference.

From wikipedia...
Just about every socio-economic indicator shows that the distribution of income in the United States is becoming increasingly unequal. In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968. Looking back even further to 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

And the overwhelming majority of Americans - regardless of ideology - would prefer it to be more equitable here:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/25/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/

[Anonymous]

14:10 I am glad to know that my tax dollars are being well spent in at least one agency. My experience was sadly different--co-workers sleeping on the job, doing personal business, listening to the radio so loudly that the rest of us couldn't concentrate,. They got by with it because they knew it was too difficult to fire them. They had a good salary, good benefits, normal hours and job security and they took advantage. It was very disheartening.

[Anonymous]

Teachers, plumbers and trash collectors have less schooling . . . And they're all in the same category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:02 Both jobs are necessary, but it doesn't mean that they have any equal economic value. Should a cardiac surgeon spends many years in school and residency make the same as a plumber or a nanny or a cashier? All are needed professions, but the cost (in terms of both time and money) are not the same.

BTW--I can and have done my own plumbing. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon. It just doesn't make economic sense for me to do my own plumbing repairs anymore.

Duh! The question is not whether they should have different incomes. The question is: how different should their incomes be? Should the poor plumber (actually, the richester person in my neighborhood is a plumber, so this is actually a bad example, but anyway...) have to live in a neighborhood with no police? Should his kids have to go to schools with 40 children per class? Should he not be able to buy a home?

NP. I agree. Although the plumber/trash collector/teacher has less schooling and should make less, its an issue of how much of a difference.

From wikipedia...
Just about every socio-economic indicator shows that the distribution of income in the United States is becoming increasingly unequal. In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968. Looking back even further to 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teachers, plumbers and trash collectors have less schooling . . . And they're all in the same category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:02 Both jobs are necessary, but it doesn't mean that they have any equal economic value. Should a cardiac surgeon spends many years in school and residency make the same as a plumber or a nanny or a cashier? All are needed professions, but the cost (in terms of both time and money) are not the same.

BTW--I can and have done my own plumbing. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon. It just doesn't make economic sense for me to do my own plumbing repairs anymore.

Duh! The question is not whether they should have different incomes. The question is: how different should their incomes be? Should the poor plumber (actually, the richester person in my neighborhood is a plumber, so this is actually a bad example, but anyway...) have to live in a neighborhood with no police? Should his kids have to go to schools with 40 children per class? Should he not be able to buy a home?

NP. I agree. Although the plumber/trash collector/teacher has less schooling and should make less, its an issue of how much of a difference.

From wikipedia...
Just about every socio-economic indicator shows that the distribution of income in the United States is becoming increasingly unequal. In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968. Looking back even further to 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

My husband, a PhD in history had a TON of schooling and he probably makes less than most plumbers. Don't fool yourself: It's not about the schooling, at least not for all professions. Nor is it about contribution to society, otherwise kindergarten teachers would make $320,00 a year (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28leonhardt.html).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:02 Both jobs are necessary, but it doesn't mean that they have any equal economic value. Should a cardiac surgeon spends many years in school and residency make the same as a plumber or a nanny or a cashier? All are needed professions, but the cost (in terms of both time and money) are not the same.

BTW--I can and have done my own plumbing. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon. It just doesn't make economic sense for me to do my own plumbing repairs anymore.

Duh! The question is not whether they should have different incomes. The question is: how different should their incomes be? Should the poor plumber (actually, the richester person in my neighborhood is a plumber, so this is actually a bad example, but anyway...) have to live in a neighborhood with no police? Should his kids have to go to schools with 40 children per class? Should he not be able to buy a home?

NP. I agree. Although the plumber/trash collector/teacher has less schooling and should make less, its an issue of how much of a difference.

From wikipedia...
Just about every socio-economic indicator shows that the distribution of income in the United States is becoming increasingly unequal. In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968. Looking back even further to 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

I just saw this in the other S/O thread.

I posted there, but my plumber charges over $100/hour. That might be on the pricey side, but I'd be hard pressed to find a plumber (a good one) who charges less than $75/hour. That is definitely more than what I make, with my graduate degree.

[Anonymous]

Why should I pay 39.5% of my income because, well, I have it? 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.

If the feds want the dual income professionals to have one spouse SAH, raising taxes is an awesome way to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I just saw this in the other S/O thread.

I posted there, but my plumber charges over $100/hour. That might be on the pricey side, but I'd be hard pressed to find a plumber (a good one) who charges less than $75/hour. That is definitely more than what I make, with my graduate degree.

Yes, but plumbers have a lot of overhead. Their tools are not cheap. And their profession depends on things breaking... not exactly something you can set a watch (or budget) to.

[Anonymous]

Eh, times are hard, and the gap between the top earners and the bottom is widening daily, so I understand some of the rancor. And, given that my husband and I are among the fortunate who are doing well, I count my blessings, try to live a honorable life, and don't let it bother me. However, it is kind of tiring to see all the comments indicating that high earners MUST be unhappy or sacrficing family life or extravagant. We are lucky. We know it. But we also work hard and try to be good citizens. Enough of the snark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is class warfare against the rich and ultimately it is going to stifle productivity. If you are constantly vilified for your success and there is a constant cry for your wealth to be redistributed, what is the incentive to succeed--so that someone who chose differently can reap the fruits of your labor?

CEOs and hedge fund/wall street types who make millions a year are frequently paid through stock and so only pay 15% in taxes, much lower than someone who currently makes a whole lot less. Many of those same folks are the ones who caused the recent finacial woes through back room deals and insider trading. Until we clean up our finanacial industry and stop allowing their own to regulate them [they come from Wall Street and go back to Wall Street after their appointment ends] the rest of us will lose out. I do not begrudge anyone their money, as long as it is made legally and legitimately.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Why should I pay 39.5% of my income because, well, I have it? 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.

If the feds want the dual income professionals to have one spouse SAH, raising taxes is an awesome way to do it.

Throughout this thread you can find these examples of the Rep/Faux tactics (compulsions?) of straw man argument and playing victim.

The OP was accusing the less affluent here and in the country generally of waging class warfare on the more affluent. Then a bunch of people jump on to defend themselves against supposed calls for higher taxes on them, which calls were no part of this thread or even the OP's complaint. The fantastic part is that they simultaneously call for more taxes on the poor.

Hypocrisy isn't enough; they have to be prehypocritical. Accuse the other side of exactly what you plan to do, then do it to them "first."

"It was self-defense; I could see the murderous hatred in his eyes!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should I pay 39.5% of my income because, well, I have it? 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all.

If the feds want the dual income professionals to have one spouse SAH, raising taxes is an awesome way to do it.

So that you don't have to live in a walled compound? (I assume you are the type that wouldn't buy the "so I can look myself in the mirror" argument. Or that it would be the Christian thing to do argument)

[Anonymous]

Having one spouse stay at home would open up opportunity for someone else. Think of all the new graduates of law school who can't find jobs!