DCUM Class warfare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many people feel that the tax laws and the mechanisms that set the salaries of top corporate executives are set up in an unfair way, so as to make the wealthy get wealthier. For example, the salary of top executives is set by their peers, not really by the market. In other countries, the salaries of top executives is much lower and more of the wealth is distributed to all the employees in the country. The wealthy pay congress to make the tax laws favorable to them. Yes, there is class warfare. It is those with access to power making war on the common folk and stealing (yes stealing) a disproportionate amount of the wealth this country generates. Yes, there should be more money for people that work hard and have natural gifts. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is advocating communism. But why should congress pass laws so that Warren Buffet pays less taxes in percent than his secretary? This is congress making class warefare on the middle class. Our nation was not like this in the 1950s. We should return to a more equitable distribution of wealth and stop this class warfare.

50% of Americans pay NO TAX. They should shut the fuck up!

[Anonymous]

My DH and I work very hard, are well educated with graduate degrees and have been blown to smithereens by this recession. DH was un/underemployed for two years. I work for a non-profit, and so no, I'm not making big law dollars. But I work damn hard and put in long hours. So is our current hardship situation our fault? I don't think so. Were we irresponsible with our money. NO. So I really don't want to hear from the meritocracy that hasn't yet been hit by the recession about how they deserve to be millionaires because they just work so darn hard.

Let's face it, the middle class is getting screwed left, right, and center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH and I work very hard, are well educated with graduate degrees and have been blown to smithereens by this recession. DH was un/underemployed for two years. I work for a non-profit, and so no, I'm not making big law dollars. But I work damn hard and put in long hours. So is our current hardship situation our fault? I don't think so. Were we irresponsible with our money. NO. So I really don't want to hear from the meritocracy that hasn't yet been hit by the recession about how they deserve to be millionaires because they just work so darn hard.

Let's face it, the middle class is getting screwed left, right, and center.

Sorry for your predicament. But lets face it, you had a choice. When you were at your good school you chose to go the nonprofit route and you must have KNOWN that that was the path to riches. It comes with the territory. Don't blame someone who chose a safe profession and went for the money.

[Anonymous]

11:18 Right on! Everyone and I mean everyone in this country who earns any money should pay some federal income tax. When you have almost half of population sucking on the green mammary tit they have no incentive to hold our politicians accountable. If everyone had to pay something instead of just shifting costs to the "wealthy" there would be a public outcry to do away with waste and lower taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lowest recent unemployment rate was 3.8% in April 2000, before the Bush tax cuts (39.6 vs. 35) and even before Bush's election. Going back further, we get 3.4% in 1969, when the top marginal rate was 75.25%.

Yes, back in the day the tax rate was insanely high and intended to nab the Rockefeller wealthy (who could otherwise find tax loopholes to pay nothing). During the depression the tax rate was 80% for incomes over $5,000,000. People love to cite the higher tax rates as relevant to the "Obama rich" earning more than $250,000. The "rich" today should be considered the Buffet-type rich, not today's "working wealthy" folks.

The $5M threshold was in place from 1936-1941, but aside from that (and the $1M threshold in 1932-35), the threshold for the top rate has generally hovered around $200K (sometimes bumping up to $400K, but dropping precipitously in the 80s, to a low of 30K during Reagan's last year in office). In 1968, it was $200K (which granted was worth a lot more then than it is now); in 2000 it was $288K.

[Anonymous]

11:18, really? STFU? Seriously? I've been to Brazilian favelas and Kenyan kiberas, I've seen the wealthy barricaded behind barbed wire and cement walls. I will gladly pay more in taxes to live in a more equitable society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DH and I work very hard, are well educated with graduate degrees and have been blown to smithereens by this recession. DH was un/underemployed for two years. I work for a non-profit, and so no, I'm not making big law dollars. But I work damn hard and put in long hours. So is our current hardship situation our fault? I don't think so. Were we irresponsible with our money. NO. So I really don't want to hear from the meritocracy that hasn't yet been hit by the recession about how they deserve to be millionaires because they just work so darn hard.

Let's face it, the middle class is getting screwed left, right, and center.

Sorry for your predicament. But lets face it, you had a choice. When you were at your good school you chose to go the nonprofit route and you must have KNOWN that that was the path to riches. It comes with the territory. Don't blame someone who chose a safe profession and went for the money.

And here's where social capital comes into play. If you need to plan for your future earning power at the age of 18, you really need some advice to help you get there. Some people from poor backgrounds have the moxie to seek out good mentors and only listen to them. But most people will listen to their parents for advice--and even if their parents have it together and are sane & loving, if they're living on the edge of poverty they're unlikely to know which major is the best for future earnings.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:To Usernameman: Either I have no idea what you're saying or I disagree. At the very least, yeah, we'll need a cite for the "if people don't fall into money directly many more fall into its benefits" (paraphrasing).

Are you really going to question "many?" I couldn't have been much vaguer. Do you seriously doubt that there are significant disparities among people in those areas of upbringing?

If instead you doubt that there's an impact, as I said, why try to give your kids any benefits? Move to Anacostia and leave the kids alone all day. (I guess that's one way we could do a study.)

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe I'm just blinded by my own situation: poor girl meets poor boy, both work tails off, take out education debt, work tails off, pay off education debt, encounter zero additional debt (except reasonable mortgage), work tails off, make sacrifices, send kids to public school and now, voila, we're "rich." Hooray.

There's no question that there are many true rags-to-riches stories; it's a big country, after all.

There are many more stories like what many of us are realistically hoping for for our kids: stable home, attention from loving people, safe neighborhood, good schools (private or public in good neighborhood), good nutrition, subtle educational benefits like good grammar and social skills. I didn't have all of those things, but I had most of them, so I consider myself to have been fairly privileged, though I didn't inherit anything, I paid for all of my schooling, and I never benefited from any family connection.

There's another issue here, BTW. Let's say I'm just a lot smarter than average. (Psst! - I think I am). There are multiple points at which it's pretty inarguable that my successes resulted from intelligence, NOT work ethic - I'm pretty lazy. Right there, there's a significant difference in opportunity from birth. For all of these reasons, it would be ridiculous for me to look at a working class person and ascribe the differences in our situations entirely to work ethic and choice.

Anonymous wrote:Now increase our taxes (because we lack empathy?).

That's a different question. And no, my opinions about taxes have nothing to do with my evaluation of one's empathy.

OP and many others boo-hooed about how s/he is a victim of a nationwide class war. I call BS on that. Now if you consider ANY taxation to be class warfare, we apparently just define that term differently.

BTW, do you think there's a nationwide class war against you? I bet not.

[Anonymous]

11:26 No one is stopping you or Buffett from paying more taxes. Write that check out today and put your money where your mouth is. Until then, STFU!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:18, really? STFU? Seriously? I've been to Brazilian favelas and Kenyan kiberas, I've seen the wealthy barricaded behind barbed wire and cement walls. I will gladly pay more in taxes to live in a more equitable society.

And if you've really been to those societies you'll realize that only in America can some1 come from the bottom and make it to the top. Our system is built on using your own talents. In Kenya a few families have it all and the rest live like paupers, in Brazil you better be of European descent. Again America is the greatest country in the world. Look at the immigrants that show up on our shores and "make it". Year after year, check out your local university you'll see them as TAs or researchers working so hard.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many people feel that the tax laws and the mechanisms that set the salaries of top corporate executives are set up in an unfair way, so as to make the wealthy get wealthier. For example, the salary of top executives is set by their peers, not really by the market. In other countries, the salaries of top executives is much lower and more of the wealth is distributed to all the employees in the country. The wealthy pay congress to make the tax laws favorable to them. Yes, there is class warfare. It is those with access to power making war on the common folk and stealing (yes stealing) a disproportionate amount of the wealth this country generates. Yes, there should be more money for people that work hard and have natural gifts. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is advocating communism. But why should congress pass laws so that Warren Buffet pays less taxes in percent than his secretary? This is congress making class warefare on the middle class. Our nation was not like this in the 1950s. We should return to a more equitable distribution of wealth and stop this class warfare.

50% of Americans pay NO TAX. They should shut the fuck up!

How do they avoid sales' tax? I'd like to know so I can avoid it too

[Anonymous]

1) Skewed work compensation resulting in greater disparities in wealth. I agree that people with more education and expertise should get paid more. However, this does not explain why a law firm partner or a hedge fund manager should be making $1 million/year while a tenured professor should make 1/10 that. (My grandfather is a retired professor; and when he was in his 30s and 40s, professors, lawyers, and doctors had lifestyles that were relatively similar. Now, a top PhD graduate earns 1/3 of what a top law school grad makes; and MDs are saddled with $200K of debt when they leave their residencies.)

2) Some people are given bootstraps to pull themselves up, so to speak. If you were born to educated, married parents, you have a major leg up in terms of future success. If you were born poor to a single uneducated mother, you are digging your way out of a hole. If your parents save a little nest egg for you that you used for higher ed., a car, a wedding, a home downpayment; paid for a wedding; made sure you went to college--these are forms of compensation that contribute to future wealth. You shouldn't start counting income with college--you really need to start pre-birth.

3) The tax burden on the uber-wealthy has minimal impact upon their ability to live well. The tax burden on the poor, OTOH, has a tremendous impact upon the quality of life for children, especially. The parrot who keeps mentioning that 47% of Americans don't pay federal taxes is omitting some crucial information. Like, the fact that 70% of those make UNDER $50K/year; and even then, they are subject to payroll taxes like Medicare and SS--how do you shelter, feed, clothe, transport, educate, and insure a family of 4 in the DC area on that income, especially if that family can't ever save money? Also, according to the same think tank that come up with this info, some 23,000 families that make more than $500K also don't pay federal income taxes.

It's not class warfare, OP, it's the fact that the privileged on this board often over-simplify how they were able to accumulate their wealth.

[Anonymous]

Order everything through Amazon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lowest recent unemployment rate was 3.8% in April 2000, before the Bush tax cuts (39.6 vs. 35) and even before Bush's election. Going back further, we get 3.4% in 1969, when the top marginal rate was 75.25%.

Yes, back in the day the tax rate was insanely high and intended to nab the Rockefeller wealthy (who could otherwise find tax loopholes to pay nothing). During the depression the tax rate was 80% for incomes over $5,000,000. People love to cite the higher tax rates as relevant to the "Obama rich" earning more than $250,000. The "rich" today should be considered the Buffet-type rich, not today's "working wealthy" folks.

The $5M threshold was in place from 1936-1941, but aside from that (and the $1M threshold in 1932-35), the threshold for the top rate has generally hovered around $200K (sometimes bumping up to $400K, but dropping precipitously in the 80s, to a low of 30K during Reagan's last year in office). In 1968, it was $200K (which granted was worth a lot more then than it is now); in 2000 it was $288K.

Exactly. So this business of calling the $250k+ rich and taxing at the top brackets does not have historical basis, is a relatively new phenomenon, and has never been adjusted for today's dollars from the $1M in the 1930's, as is so often chirped in news bites or scribbled in op eds. That's my point: raise the top tax bracket through the roof, but go after the Buffet rich (Warren said they wouldn't mind the tax hike), not today's new "working wealthy."