Stop Using the term Class Warfare

[Anonymous]

So you read carefully enough to bold all that, but not to see that PP said s/he wasn't a liberal, and criticized both sides? Well done.

Umm, I read it carefully enough to not find one thing that would suggest that this so called independent has any right of center views at all. But hey the PP says he is an independent and therefore not another angry liberal so it must be true.

Hate and Blame it is the new Hope and Change

[Anonymous]

Hate and Blame it is the new Hope and Change

[Anonymous]

Here is my position. My DH and I make 400K a year. It's a lot, I know. (Trust me, I know because I did not come from any money at all.) But our effective tax rate is 50% (state, federal, SS, etc.). We have kids. It's frustrating to go to school for a long time, put in the years, work long hours, give half of your money to the government, and then be told you aren't giving enough. You are selfish and greedy.

Can you see why that might frustrate me?

I couldn't agree more. I never used to resent paying taxes. However, the wealthy have been vilified so much in the last couple of years that I am now angry and resentful. I pay more than my "fair share." Enough already.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone agrees that a couple making 400K a year is wealthy. And if you ask people on the street, many will say that those people aren't paying enough in taxes. If they don't say that, they sure don't sound grateful for the 50% we are contributing. I'm not looking for gratitude but I don't want to be told I don't pay my fair share and that I should start giving something back.

I don't understand. You say you're not looking for gratitude while complaining that hypothetical people don't sound grateful (have you asked them?). Then you switch to complaining about people saying that you should start giving something back - have you actually heard that much?

"Fair share" is different. Obviously, whenever there's a disagreement over proper rates, the sides are disagreeing over what's fair. There's nothing personal about each side thinking that only they have the "fair" solution - that's the entire nature of the dispute.

My position is I don't need gratitude but I don't want to be denigrated and called selfish. That's a reasonable position. I hear politicians saying the wealthy need to "give back more" all the time - and you do too. I am told the wealthy need to pay their fair share and that they aren't. I give 50%. I don't want to give more. In fact, I want to give somewhat less and I still do not think that is selfish or unfair.

[Anonymous]

My position is I don't need gratitude but I don't want to be denigrated and called selfish. That's a reasonable position. I hear politicians saying the wealthy need to "give back more" all the time - and you do too. I am told the wealthy need to pay their fair share and that they aren't. I give 50%. I don't want to give more. In fact, I want to give somewhat less and I still do not think that is selfish or unfair.

Ditto

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Fair share" is different. Obviously, whenever there's a disagreement over proper rates, the sides are disagreeing over what's fair. There's nothing personal about each side thinking that only they have the "fair" solution - that's the entire nature of the dispute.

I do not think that fairness is the entire nature of the dispute. The incentives we give people for wealth creation, meaning social wealth like jobs and goods, and the necessary size of government are my first concerns. Then I am concerned about not asking people to give too much because that would be unfair.

The independent idea that the rich need to give up a large amount of their wealth in the name of fairness is usually, but not always, a redistributive urge. Some people support that and some don't. I do not think that is the entire nature of the dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone agrees that a couple making 400K a year is wealthy. And if you ask people on the street, many will say that those people aren't paying enough in taxes. If they don't say that, they sure don't sound grateful for the 50% we are contributing. I'm not looking for gratitude but I don't want to be told I don't pay my fair share and that I should start giving something back.

I don't understand. You say you're not looking for gratitude while complaining that hypothetical people don't sound grateful (have you asked them?). Then you switch to complaining about people saying that you should start giving something back - have you actually heard that much?

"Fair share" is different. Obviously, whenever there's a disagreement over proper rates, the sides are disagreeing over what's fair. There's nothing personal about each side thinking that only they have the "fair" solution - that's the entire nature of the dispute.

My position is I don't need gratitude but I don't want to be denigrated and called selfish. That's a reasonable position. I hear politicians saying the wealthy need to "give back more" all the time - and you do too. I am told the wealthy need to pay their fair share and that they aren't. I give 50%. I don't want to give more. In fact, I want to give somewhat less and I still do not think that is selfish or unfair.

You don't pay 50% Either you think you do, or you are making some serious mistakes in your tax calculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My position is I don't need gratitude but I don't want to be denigrated and called selfish. That's a reasonable position. I hear politicians saying the wealthy need to "give back more" all the time - and you do too. I am told the wealthy need to pay their fair share and that they aren't. I give 50%. I don't want to give more. In fact, I want to give somewhat less and I still do not think that is selfish or unfair.

I would not ask this except for the fact that you are anonymous, so you would not be making any private information public: Can you explain to me (in round numbers) how you come to have a tax bill that comes to 50% of your gross income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

I don't believe that a tax code change qualifies as pitting one economic class against the other. Otherwise, Bush is guilty of class warfare.

Right, that's the part I don't understand. Right now we've got historically low tax rates. Raising those rates by some percentage is a legitimate policy option. How on Earth is talking about that option "warfare"? Are the wingnuts who want to privatize social security engaging in "class warfare" too?

Is that right? I am finding it hard to believe the conflicting sources I find online.

Here is my position. My DH and I make 400K a year. It's a lot, I know. (Trust me, I know because I did not come from any money at all.) But our effective tax rate is 50% (state, federal, SS, etc.). We have kids. It's frustrating to go to school for a long time, put in the years, work long hours, give half of your money to the government, and then be told you aren't giving enough. You are selfish and greedy.

Can you see why that might frustrate me?

And before someone goes there, let me say that just because I have worked long and hard it does not mean I don't realize that many people have worked long and hard to make much less. I know they have. I don't think that justifies a 50% effective tax rate.

No, because the proposed tax changes don't affect you. You would have to make 2.5 times that before the first penny of extra tax would come out of your pocket.

I'm not talking about any particular tax change. I'm talking about the "class warfare" in which people argue that the wealthy aren't paying enough. Everyone agrees that a couple making 400K a year is wealthy. And if you ask people on the street, many will say that those people aren't paying enough in taxes. If they don't say that, they sure don't sound grateful for the 50% we are contributing. I'm not looking for gratitude but I don't want to be told I don't pay my fair share and that I should start giving something back.

By the way, according to our accountant some of the proposals floating around Congress would increase our tax rates.

SS is not a tax, since you will ultimately get most of that money back.

My hunch is that you are also ignoring voluntary deductions, such as health insurance and retirement, from the gap between your gross and net pay.

And, when ALL taxes are considered, including sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes (which are passed on to renters through their rent) etc., many people earning far less than you end up contributing a far greater percentage of their salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone agrees that a couple making 400K a year is wealthy. And if you ask people on the street, many will say that those people aren't paying enough in taxes. If they don't say that, they sure don't sound grateful for the 50% we are contributing. I'm not looking for gratitude but I don't want to be told I don't pay my fair share and that I should start giving something back.

I don't understand. You say you're not looking for gratitude while complaining that hypothetical people don't sound grateful (have you asked them?). Then you switch to complaining about people saying that you should start giving something back - have you actually heard that much?

"Fair share" is different. Obviously, whenever there's a disagreement over proper rates, the sides are disagreeing over what's fair. There's nothing personal about each side thinking that only they have the "fair" solution - that's the entire nature of the dispute.

My position is I don't need gratitude but I don't want to be denigrated and called selfish. That's a reasonable position. I hear politicians saying the wealthy need to "give back more" all the time - and you do too. I am told the wealthy need to pay their fair share and that they aren't. I give 50%. I don't want to give more. In fact, I want to give somewhat less and I still do not think that is selfish or unfair.

Not sure if this link will work: http://www.paycheckcity.com/calculator/netpay/us/washington%20dc/result.html

Obviously, I made a number of assumptions, but for a couple making $400K, filing jointly and claiming 3 exceptions, your gross monthly pay is $33,333 and your net monthly pay is $20,164. That puts you under 40% (39.51%) which includes Social Security, which is not a true tax in the way you are using the term.

So, yea, you're not paying 50%. Facts are facts. Let's try to stick to them, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

I don't believe that a tax code change qualifies as pitting one economic class against the other. Otherwise, Bush is guilty of class warfare.

Right, that's the part I don't understand. Right now we've got historically low tax rates. Raising those rates by some percentage is a legitimate policy option. How on Earth is talking about that option "warfare"? Are the wingnuts who want to privatize social security engaging in "class warfare" too?

Is that right? I am finding it hard to believe the conflicting sources I find online.

Here is my position. My DH and I make 400K a year. It's a lot, I know. (Trust me, I know because I did not come from any money at all.) But our effective tax rate is 50% (state, federal, SS, etc.). We have kids. It's frustrating to go to school for a long time, put in the years, work long hours, give half of your money to the government, and then be told you aren't giving enough. You are selfish and greedy.

Can you see why that might frustrate me?

And before someone goes there, let me say that just because I have worked long and hard it does not mean I don't realize that many people have worked long and hard to make much less. I know they have. I don't think that justifies a 50% effective tax rate.

No, because the proposed tax changes don't affect you. You would have to make 2.5 times that before the first penny of extra tax would come out of your pocket.

I'm not talking about any particular tax change. I'm talking about the "class warfare" in which people argue that the wealthy aren't paying enough. Everyone agrees that a couple making 400K a year is wealthy. And if you ask people on the street, many will say that those people aren't paying enough in taxes. If they don't say that, they sure don't sound grateful for the 50% we are contributing. I'm not looking for gratitude but I don't want to be told I don't pay my fair share and that I should start giving something back.

By the way, according to our accountant some of the proposals floating around Congress would increase our tax rates.

SS is not a tax, since you will ultimately get most of that money back.

My hunch is that you are also ignoring voluntary deductions, such as health insurance and retirement, from the gap between your gross and net pay.

And, when ALL taxes are considered, including sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes (which are passed on to renters through their rent) etc., many people earning far less than you end up contributing a far greater percentage of their salary.

Agreed. The pp probably also has a huge house with a mortgage. The mortgage interest deduction is part of the hidden "welfare state" for the wealthy. Most countries do not have it, and it certainly benefits the wealthy more than the poor. It is fine to whine about your tax burden, but it is not as simple as you make it seem.

[TheManWithAUsername]

anonymous wrote:I couldn't agree more. I never used to resent paying taxes. However, the wealthy have been vilified so much in the last couple of years that I am now angry and resentful. I pay more than my "fair share." Enough already.

Vilified by whom? The vilification isn’t happening. What’s happening is a bunch of people manipulating you by telling you you’re being vilified.

BTW, though, you form your opinions about tax policy based on whether your feelings have been hurt?

anonymous wrote: My position is I don't need gratitude but I don't want to be denigrated and called selfish. That's a reasonable position.

Sure. But where is that occurring?

anonymous wrote:I hear politicians saying the wealthy need to "give back more" all the time - and you do too.

I’m confident I’ve never used that phrase. That phrase is foreign to my perspective on taxation. I have a username, so it would be easy to search and find that quote or one like it from me.

I wouldn’t nitpick about the language, but your whole point has been about the language used. I propose that all of you are imagining/being told that certain language is being used by Dems that simply isn’t, just like you’ve imagined that I used that phrase. (I don't doubt that many Dems have said "give back more," but that's a far cry from vilification.)

anonymous wrote:I am told the wealthy need to pay their fair share and that they aren't. I give 50%. I don't want to give more. In fact, I want to give somewhat less and I still do not think that is selfish or unfair.

Ah – so it’s NOT the language. You just don’t want to pay more. Nothing really interesting about that position.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:"Fair share" is different. Obviously, whenever there's a disagreement over proper rates, the sides are disagreeing over what's fair. There's nothing personal about each side thinking that only they have the "fair" solution - that's the entire nature of the dispute.

I do not think that fairness is the entire nature of the dispute. The incentives we give people for wealth creation, meaning social wealth like jobs and goods, and the necessary size of government are my first concerns. Then I am concerned about not asking people to give too much because that would be unfair.

The independent idea that the rich need to give up a large amount of their wealth in the name of fairness is usually, but not always, a redistributive urge. Some people support that and some don't. I do not think that is the entire nature of the dispute.

You’re right (using “redistributive” broadly, IMO).

I still don’t think it’s especially inflammatory or insulting to talk about fairness in this context, as PP apparently did, since most of us have ideas about fairness somewhere in the analysis, as you and I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

Labeling any discussion of a fair distribution of the tax load as "class warfare" is what is pitting people against each other.

Fair is a subjective term. If we want to reverse the Bush tax cuts, we need to reverse them all, at all income levels. Selective reversal strikes me as unfair and arguably class warfare. But then again, it is totally subjective right?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't warfare usually involve things like guns and fighting and drawing sides and, ya know, war? There has been some angry rhetoric, but nothing approaching "war".

Most perverse about the notion of "war" is that people are fighting for the right side. The Joe the Plumbers of the world, who stand to benefit from the Democrats' plans are virulently opposed to them, because they fancy themselves being in that soon-to-be-'persecuted' or ultimately being there. Even our poster here doesn't realize he/she isn't going to be impacted by the latest proposals, since they are aimed at people making $1M or more. His/her salary would need to go up 150% before he/she paid any new taxes. And, even if he/she was impacted by the latest proposal (which aims to move the top tax bracket from 35% to 39%), the rough impact on his/her tax bill would be a whopping $834 a year or less than $70 a month.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitting one economic class against the other is class warfare. It is stirring up hatred and divisiveness in this country. Obama uses this rhetoric again and again to further his socialist agenda and our country is more polarized than ever.

Labeling any discussion of a fair distribution of the tax load as "class warfare" is what is pitting people against each other.

Fair is a subjective term. If we want to reverse the Bush tax cuts, we need to reverse them all, at all income levels. Selective reversal strikes me as unfair and arguably class warfare. But then again, it is totally subjective right?

If you feel that it is only fair if everyone is treated the same, I have the perfect philosophy for you: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."