Class Warfare - Why is that a bad thing?

[Stravo]

I see it every single time that we have a conversation/debate regarding tax cuts, tax increases, literally anything that impacts those of a higher tax bracket. Inevitably some Republican/conservative spouts off on "That's class warfare" or "You're inciting some kind of class warfare when you do that."

The response is usually a hasty retreat or sudden mealy mouthiness from the person trying to advance the idea of making the rich pay their fair share.

Now WHY is that a bad thing? Why is speaking in terms of class struggle seen as an ugly thing because speaking as someone who is himself what I term "Democrat Rich" I am not offended by talk of making the rich pay their fair share. In the end the "rich" that I see as the biggest issue when it comes to wealth disparity make up a mere 1% of the country. They after all own something like 90% of the nation's assets. So, who are we afraid of offending and why is speaking about equalizing the unprecendented concentration of wealth such a bad thing? Why should 90% of the population be afraid of categorizing the other 10% as GASP indordinately wealthy?

Let's back up and remember we're talking about a couple of percentage points increase in a tax bracket and not a Soviet style redistribution of wealth where Bill Gates is going to be shuttled off into a work camp.

Why does this counter argument (and not really a counter but more like a verbal hand grenade) cause such hand wringing among the left? Isn't the Tea Party movement itself a thinly veiled sort of class warfare all its own? I know Americans don't seem to like to talk about class but let's face it, class divides especially in this economy are becoming a real issue.

[Kanastrous]

I can't speak for anyone else but for my part I dislike the whole 'class warfare' angle because it appears to me that most people interpret the phrase to mean anyone who posts a bigger year-end income than I do did it by cheating or gaming or somehow stealing it from me so as much as possible should be taken away and distributed to people from whom it was somehow or other 'stolen.'

Well, I'm 'working class' in the sense that I work for a living. I have a schedule by which I'm expected to show up and to which I'm expected to get things done, I'm paid based upon hours actually worked, and by far the larger proportion of my income comes from paychecks from which deductions are taken, rather than sit-back-and-accumulate-it investment income. However, since I also happen to be competitive at my 'working class' kind of employment, I post a six-figure yearly income that puts me in the top five percent of US earners - a prime target for the 'redistribute the wealth' types.

So it seems to me that the 'class warfare' advocates basically make the error to which Darth Wong alludes in his essay of Marxism: they seem to think that it's a binary solution set; either you're the struggling working-class hero who despite his nobility of spirit and hard labor is unfairly boned out his just rewards by 'the system,' or you're a plutocrat wallowing in ill-gotten dollars sneakily extracted from the pockets of widows and orphans who should just be taken down a few notches, you know, on general principles.

It also suggests that there's a lamentably large and vocal segment of the population who can't conceive of being sufficiently competitive at a carefully-chosen profession that you can accumulate a decent yearly income without having to game any system or fuck over innocent people, to do it. I suspect that this is because they themselves can't imagine having that capacity, but obviously that's just a guess on my part.

[stormthebeaches]

Personally, when I think of class warfare I don't think of tax hikes for the rich. I think of stuff like what went on in China after WW2. On the one hand this makes me roll my eyes when American right wings scream about letting tax cuts for the rich expire being class warfare. On the other hand this makes me uncomfortable when people propose class warfare as a solution because it brings up imagines in my mind of angry mobs tearing apart suspected "enemies of the working class" in the streets.

[Murazor]

snip

Without entering in the actual meat of the argument, I'll merely comment that I am an economist and I have no memory of ever finding a widely accepted definition of 'working class' (slippery term that it is) that would include people earning six figures yearly incomes, even if most of said income comes from wages.

[Uraniun235]

Isn't the Tea Party movement itself a thinly veiled sort of class warfare all its own?

I couldn't tell you precisely the demographic makeup of the 'Tea Party Movement' (ugh), but I'd be willing to bet there's a lot of people in there who aren't exactly members of the upper tax brackets. Fact is that the masterstroke genius/perversion of American politics is in the way the lower classes have been so effectively bamboozled into consistently voting against their own interests, by making them believe they're serving some nebulous higher interest of "liberty" or "fairness". Glenn Beck runs a series of videos which seem to basically be solely calculated towards conning people into believing this.

[Kanastrous]

@ Murazor - Yeah, I had actually started a thread some time ago asking for hard (or at least firm) definitions of working class, middle class, etc etc etc and it seemed to come more down to gross revenues and their proportion to expenses than the methods by which the $$$ was earned.

But how else to describe myself? I'm not a degreed professional (lawyer, doctor, etc), I did not inherit any of my money and I go to work as an employee (or independent contractor) to earn it, as opposed to merely collecting interest and dividends. And I bridle at the suggestion that I belong in some kind of 'target' class apparently as a form of punishment for having the temerity to earn more than some others find themselves capable of earning.

I suspect that a lot of the 'acting-against-their-own-class-interest' types sincerely believe somewhere very deep down that maybe *they* are somehow inches away from becoming multi-millionaires themselves, could happen any time now don't you know, and *they* don't want to be paying big ol' taxes on the loot that *they* are somehow expecting to accumulate...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I see it every single time that we have a conversation/debate regarding tax cuts, tax increases, literally anything that impacts those of a higher tax bracket. Inevitably some Republican/conservative spouts off on "That's class warfare" or "You're inciting some kind of class warfare when you do that."

The response is usually a hasty retreat or sudden mealy mouthiness from the person trying to advance the idea of making the rich pay their fair share.

Now WHY is that a bad thing?

Because American politics is all about Corporate America and individual Robber-Barons allowing the American suckers People to decide which batch of corporate shills will represent the interests of Corporate America and individual Robber-Barons . . . the corporate shills wearing red, or the corporate shills wearing blue.

So mentioning anything that might seriously run counter to the interests of Corporate America and individual Robber-Barons is verboten in American politics and tends to get condemned in the strongest language possible.

I suspect that a lot of the 'acting-against-their-own-class-interest' types sincerely believe somewhere very deep down that maybe *they* are somehow inches away from becoming multi-millionaires themselves, could happen any time now don't you know, and *they* don't want to be paying big ol' taxes on the loot that *they* are somehow expecting to accumulate...

That, or they believe that it is in the best interests of their "class" to defer to their betters. In conservative, religious, America . . . you submit to authority. The biggest sign that you have grown up is when you learn to accept authority and that everybody has a place . . . the rich and powerful are there because they've earned the right to be there. The poor are poor because they're either too lazy, their opportunity to become rich through determination and ruthlessness hasn't happened yet, or because it's not in God's plan for them to become rich.

The American ideal of success is being able to get lots of money and blow it in ostentatious displays of individual wealth. Why do you think home ownership is part of the American Dream? The American ideal of success is also one of rugged individualism. Those who suck on the government teat are to be viewed with suspicion. These people look at someone on welfare and they don't see someone in need of a leg-up; they see a parasite who is scheming to get something for nothing.

So when you combine those ways of thinking, you end up with a world view that insists that those who get money should be rewarded by getting to keep more of it and that those who don't have money should be exhorted to either work harder, or accept their position on the bottom of the totem pole and not complain about how much money their betters have.

[Edi]

I have nothing against people who do work for their money, but progressive income taxation just happens to be like that: If you fall into a certain bracket, you pay more in taxes than people who make just a slightly smaller amount of money than you because they are in a lower bracket.

US tax rates as they are are absurdly fucking low and you need a serious reform. Some people do worse by it, some don't. As far as the capital gains taxes and such, those are even more absurdly lower than other taxes.

I have little no sympathy for the argument of "I make X figure salary a year all on my own work instead of investment income, therefore I should be taxed at just as small a rate as someone who X-Y figure salary".

Make a bracket, get taxed by that bracket, end of story. If someone happens to have a skillset that is rare enough or in such great demand that they can make such a high salary, good for them. Doesn't mean anything, because if anything, they stand relatively less to lose from slightly increased taxes than people who make a lot less and thus have less disposable income.

[Stark]

If your tax system doesn't suck, you only pay the higher rate of tax on that portion of your income that falls into the new bracket (which might be $5). 42% of $5 isn't a big deal.

[Bakustra]

I have nothing against people who do work for their money, but progressive income taxation just happens to be like that: If you fall into a certain bracket, you pay more in taxes than people who make just a slightly smaller amount of money than you because they are in a lower bracket.

US tax rates as they are are absurdly fucking low and you need a serious reform. Some people do worse by it, some don't. As far as the capital gains taxes and such, those are even more absurdly lower than other taxes.

I have little no sympathy for the argument of "I make X figure salary a year all on my own work instead of investment income, therefore I should be taxed at just as small a rate as someone who X-Y figure salary".

Make a bracket, get taxed by that bracket, end of story. If someone happens to have a skillset that is rare enough or in such great demand that they can make such a high salary, good for them. Doesn't mean anything, because if anything, they stand relatively less to lose from slightly increased taxes than people who make a lot less and thus have less disposable income.

You aren't (and not to pick on you, Edi, but this is a very common misconception in the US) taxed "by the bracket" anyways. The parts of your income that fall within a bracket are taxed at the level of that bracket. So only the taxable income that falls above $373,650 (for married couples filing jointly) is taxed at 35%. The old saw about not being able to afford raises that "bump you up" into a higher bracket is a complete misunderstanding of the American tax system.

EDIT: As we can see, the American tax system does not suck in this way.

[Kanastrous]

I did not mean to suggest that the $XXX,000 I make should be taxed at a lower rate by virtue of it having been earned compensation rather than interest etc.

I was objecting to something that I perceive sometimes when these conversations come up, which is an apparent tendency on a lot of people's parts to assume that if your income is at or above some arbitrary figure it automatically means that you have not earned it via anything but investments or work that somehow 'doesn't count.' I'm content - well, resigned - to paying the established tax rate for my income bracket. After working out with my accountant how to squeeze as much back out via legitimate deductions, of course.

The American ideal of success is being able to get lots of money and blow it in ostentatious displays of individual wealth. Why do you think home ownership is part of the American Dream? The American ideal of success is also one of rugged individualism. Those who suck on the government teat are to be viewed with suspicion. These people look at someone on welfare and they don't see someone in need of a leg-up; they see a parasite who is scheming to get something for nothing.

I can't speak for others but I like owning my home because for the monthly money I could never rent a comparable place. Never. Plus of course the expectation that - if you choose wisely and time your purchase well - over time the property will increase in value, to my benefit. As far as ostentation...I don't personally go for ostentatious. If someone feels that owning a three-bedroom house is ostentatious...that's their problem.

I don't know about 'suspicion' but frankly I am *very* interested in government vigorously prosecuting welfare fraud, and both encouraging and enabling welfare recipients to get off receiving it as rapidly as is practically possible. As long as someone is collecting welfare, I'm in the crowd that's laboring to support them; I don't begrudge them that support for so long as they actually need it but I do want them off it the moment they can make their own way. And I also believe that welfare collectors have an obligation to work towards that goal, sure as I have an obligation to contribute to assisting them when they need it.

Blame the minority of real parasites who defraud the system to get their something-for-nothing; they make everyone else reliant upon the program look bad. And provide ammunition to the people who would like to junk the system so that nobody can ever benefit from it, again.

[Stark]

Ironically 'vigorously prosecuting welfare fraud' is really expensive.

[Bakustra]

I did not mean to suggest that the $XXX,000 I make should be taxed at a lower rate by virtue of it having been earned compensation rather than interest etc.

I was objecting to something that I perceive sometimes when these conversations come up, which is an apparent tendency on a lot of people's parts to assume that if your income is at or above some arbitrary figure it automatically means that you have not earned it via anything but investments. I'm content - well, resigned - to paying the established tax rate for my income bracket. After working out with my accountant how to squeeze as much back out via legitimate deductions, of course.

*snip*

I don't know about 'suspicion' but frankly I am *very* interested in government vigorously prosecuting welfare fraud, and both encouraging and enabling welfare recipients to get off receiving it as rapidly as is practically possible. As long as someone is collecting welfare, I'm in the crowd that's laboring to support them; I don't begrudge them that support for so long as they actually need it but I do want them off it the moment they can make their own way. And I also believe that welfare collectors have an obligation to work towards that goal, sure as I have an obligation to contribute to assisting them when they need it.

Blame the real parasites who defraud the system to get their something-for-nothing; they make everyone else reliant upon the program look bad. And provide ammunition to the people who would like to junk the system so that nobody can ever benefit from it, again.

Do you know why people get emotional about this? Consider that the top 5% that you belong to control 60% of the wealth and 20% of the income while the bottom 60% control only about 4% of the wealth while controlling 25% of the income. That is not really fair, but it is also alarming because that is a shift from a more equitable and less stratified society in the 50s through 70s. The last time society was this stratified was the 1920s. So there is a real feeling that if this goes on, then what will be left for the majority of people is practical serfdom under an aristocracy. Now, while the standard response for fairness is that "life ain't fair, kid", the shift is what's really alarming. To many people on the left, the US is rapidly moving backwards, rather than forwards. The genius of the right is that they have managed to convince so many people that this is really moving forward and that the American Dream is stronger than ever, rather than moving rapidly from a joke to a bad joke.

With regards to welfare, what percentage of people are parasitic on the welfare system? Are they appreciable in numbers?

[Starglider]

Consider that the top 5% that you belong to control 60% of the wealth and 20% of the income while the bottom 60% control only about 4% of the wealth while controlling 25% of the income. That is not really fair,

Not fair why? Salaries in the $100k area usually require a lot of investment in education (at least a bachelors degree, often professional qualifications for >$100k), i.e. expensive loans to pay off. The vast majority of people who are paid those sorts of incomes get them for actual valuable skills and hard work, including small business ownership. The ridiculous >$1M corporate salaries and bonuses are something else entirely, essentially an insider's club robbing both employees and shareholders of their rightful income. Inheritance is a whole other issue, it would be nice if people could have the freedom to give their accumulated savings to anyone they like without interference, but unfortunately it's socially unsustainable.

[Bakustra]

Consider that the top 5% that you belong to control 60% of the wealth and 20% of the income while the bottom 60% control only about 4% of the wealth while controlling 25% of the income. That is not really fair,

Not fair why? Salaries in the $100k area usually require a lot of investment in education (at least a bachelors degree, often professional qualifications for >$100k), i.e. expensive loans to pay off. The vast majority of people who are paid those sorts of incomes get them for actual valuable skills and hard work, including small business ownership. The ridiculous >$1M corporate salaries and bonuses are something else entirely, essentially an insider's club robbing both employees and shareholders of their rightful income. Inheritance is a whole other issue, it would be nice if people could have the freedom to give their accumulated savings to anyone they like without interference, but unfortunately it's socially unsustainable.

The wealth disparity, not the income disparity. The two groups are payed roughly similar amounts overall but have wildly different control of the wealth.

[Kanastrous]

Bakustra, do you really think that as an individual I contribute any more influence to the behavior of the "group" within which you place me, than I did back when I was earning, say $35,000 per year? It seems to me that people in my particular specific earned-dollars range are being lumped together with actual millionaires and billionaires, which may look convenient on paper but does not particularly reference reality.

[Starglider]

The wealth disparity, not the income disparity. The two groups are payed roughly similar amounts overall but have wildly different control of the wealth.

Why bother talking about income at all then? Why don't you just focus on wealth holders, or maybe the fact that the US is heavily weighted towards income and consumption taxes vs estate taxes and capital gains taxes?* Frankly getting the $40k earners to attack the $100k earners and vice versa is just what the real 'upper class' love to see.

* Historically this may have been justified in that investment creates economic growth, but recently the fraction of this wealth invested in growing the real US economy is at historic lows.

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, do you really think that as an individual I contribute any more influence to the behavior of the "group" within which you place me, than I did back when I was earning, say $35,000 per year? It seems to me that people in my particular specific earned-dollars range are being lumped together with actual millionaires and billionaires, which may look convenient on paper but does not particularly reference reality.

The problem is not the behavior of the group, but rather the presence of this accelerating disparity. Drop your feelings of being blamed and persecuted. You are not important to said leftist groups. These efforts that are labeled as "class warfare" are efforts to make a more equitable society, and so must curtail this expansion. This includes efforts to alter the tax rates. If you feel that this is a targeted "fuck you for being a hard worker", you are, in fact, part of the problem. This is not an action of malice, though many progressives and social democrats and socialists do feel that many rich are actively malicious themselves. This is an action to alter the course of our nation.

The wealth disparity, not the income disparity. The two groups are payed roughly similar amounts overall but have wildly different control of the wealth.

Why bother talking about income at all then? Why don't you just focus on wealth holders, or maybe the fact that the US is heavily weighted towards income and consumption taxes vs estate taxes and capital gains taxes?* Frankly getting the $40k earners to attack the $100k earners and vice versa is just what the real 'upper class' love to see.

* Historically this may have been justified in that investment creates economic growth, but recently the fraction of this wealth invested in growing the real US economy is at historic lows.

Read what I wrote carefully.

[Kanastrous]

The problem is not the behavior of the group, but rather the presence of this accelerating disparity.

I can easily see why people at the lower end of the income ladder being unable to make ends meet is a problem. It's not as readily apparent to me why it's urgently problematic where we're talking about people who are able to get by on their income with a degree of security, while their income is very much less than some other person's. That is, if you can't afford food that's self-evidently a big problem. If you can only afford hamburger once or twice per week while someone across town can afford filet mignon nightly - I can see why that would be unsatisfactory but not so much why it would actually be problematic.

Drop your feelings of being blamed and persecuted.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I'm persecuted, at least no more so than most and definitely less than many. I think I made clear that at least where taxes are concerned I am content to pay what I am paying. But 'blamed?' Yeah, it probably shouldn't bother me but I *do* get the sense that there is some degree of blame attached by people earning less to people earning more. At least, I get that sense from some of the content, around here.

You are not important to said leftist groups.

...and thank the gods, for that.

These efforts that are labeled as "class warfare" are efforts to make a more equitable society, and so must curtail this expansion. This includes efforts to alter the tax rates. If you feel that this is a targeted "fuck you for being a hard worker", you are, in fact, part of the problem.

Are we talking about using the law to guarantee equity of opportunity, or equity of outcomes? I am a big fan of the former and would agree that without it justice is lacking, but the latter impresses me as immoral.

This is not an action of malice, though many progressives and social democrats and socialists do feel that many rich are actively malicious themselves. This is an action to alter the course of our nation.

Whether a large proportion of one's income is being extracted from one's pocket out of noble high-minded desire for social equalization or merely out of malice doesn't make very much difference if one's primary concern is the rate at which one's pocket is being emptied.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Who cares how fast your pocket is being emptied? What you should be assesing things on is how comfortable a quality of life you have referenced against the ammount of work you do.

The law of diminshing marginal returns tells us [roughly] that for any given increase in income there is a decreasing rate of growth in utlity.

Is someone earning 200k after tax really less happy than someone earning 250k after tax? Somehow I doubt it.

[Temujin]

I see it every single time that we have a conversation/debate regarding tax cuts, tax increases, literally anything that impacts those of a higher tax bracket. Inevitably some Republican/conservative spouts off on "That's class warfare" or "You're inciting some kind of class warfare when you do that."

The response is usually a hasty retreat or sudden mealy mouthiness from the person trying to advance the idea of making the rich pay their fair share.

Now WHY is that a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing. It's just an attempt by the so-called conservatives to link any kind of just or fair reform to the dreaded specter of communism, the other boogie man hiding in America's closet along Osama the terrorist.

Besides, they have their own version of this when they trot out all of their "Culture Wars" bullshit which directly attacks all things liberal and progressive. The difference is the former is reform based making society as just and as fair as possible to compensate for life not being fair, which is one of the points of society. The latter is just the insane dishonest screeching of an ever shrinking anachronistic minority tenaciously clinging to power and their own idealized version of the past while terrified of the present/future that has long since passed them by.

The reason so many on the so-called left in this country aren't willing to push the issue is that collectively the American left has little backbone.

That, or they believe that it is in the best interests of their "class" to defer to their betters. In conservative, religious, America . . . you submit to authority. The biggest sign that you have grown up is when you learn to accept authority and that everybody has a place . . . the rich and powerful are there because they've earned the right to be there. The poor are poor because they're either too lazy, their opportunity to become rich through determination and ruthlessness hasn't happened yet, or because it's not in God's plan for them to become rich.

The American ideal of success is being able to get lots of money and blow it in ostentatious displays of individual wealth. Why do you think home ownership is part of the American Dream? The American ideal of success is also one of rugged individualism. Those who suck on the government teat are to be viewed with suspicion. These people look at someone on welfare and they don't see someone in need of a leg-up; they see a parasite who is scheming to get something for nothing.

So when you combine those ways of thinking, you end up with a world view that insists that those who get money should be rewarded by getting to keep more of it and that those who don't have money should be exhorted to either work harder, or accept their position on the bottom of the totem pole and not complain about how much money their betters have.

Excellently put. Having to work with bozos like this I can say this is the kind of shit I here on a regular basis.

[Bakustra]

So you're an anti-tax looney? You seem to not understand the difference of words. When Republicans cry "class warfare", they are referring to any attempts to let tax cuts expire on the top two brackets. Not even tax increases- those are unacceptably communist and fascist, much like how every other first-world nation is a full-blown Fasco-Commie dystopia. When anybody else uses it, it refers to actions taken to damage or destroy one socioeconomic class. Historically, this has generally been the topmost against everybody else, except in communist revolutions.

But this is a problem because this gives the rich unfair advantages over the poor in a wide stream of areas, not just in lifestyle. The rich wield far more power, they use said power to harm the poor, and so the poor are becoming less and less enfranchised. So this is really, for many of the people that speak out about it, about saving democracy. Democracy is rule by the people. Not rule by the rich people.

I have to admit that it would be easy to blame you, but I recognize that you simply have no clue about many of these things, like the majority of Americans. But the reason there's blame is that people assume that this horrid state of affairs arose from conscious efforts and is maintained from conscious efforts. I believe differently.

You suggest that a large proportion of your pocket money would be affected by these efforts. Why do you believe this to be so? Did you know that taxes are lower than at any point since the 1920s? That the proposed tax increases wouldn't even reach the levels of Reagan, let alone Nixon or Eisenhower? You're nowhere near in danger of losing a majority of your earnings above 375,000, let alone magically reforming the tax rate so that communist IRS commandos break into your house and steal all your money.

The goal is to allow equality of opportunity. The current situation is that many groups are doing their level best to destroy the tiny vestiges of it that remain.

[Temujin]

Who cares how fast your pocket is being emptied? What you should be assesing things on is how comfortable a quality of life you have referenced against the ammount of work you do.

The law of diminshing marginal returns tells us [roughly] that for any given increase in income there is a decreasing rate of growth in utlity.

Is someone earning 200k after tax really less happy than someone earning 250k after tax? Somehow I doubt it.

Actually my boss, Lord of the Teabags, is very unhappy because of just that. I've been having to hear him whine about just that multiple times, yet he receives what he brags is an "insane salary", a pension from his time working for the government, and makes money on the side as a writer/editor for select magazines. He in every way (physically, behaviorally, etc.) literally represents the stereotypical image of the corporate "Capitalistic Pig".

[SirNitram]

If your tax system doesn't suck, you only pay the higher rate of tax on that portion of your income that falls into the new bracket (which might be $5). 42% of $5 isn't a big deal.

It's how the US tax system works. Of course, the well-trained 'watch'dogs have been convinced to bark angrily despite this.

Class warfare bad? It's been happening for decades. Entirely in the favor of the top dogs. Their interests are now vested in a party and in what quite a bit of the political reporting groups consider 'moderate', their tax rates crashed from the >50% it was, and now letting a tax cut expire on them is a major issue that must be fought to the death.. And the moderates, of course, are the ones going to preserve it. Citizen's United Ruling, even an upcoming SCOTUS case on whether a corporation has a right to privacy.. Class warfare is what happened. Everyone below the 250k level lost. It's just a word they sling to try and prevent anything but the status quo.

[Vehrec]

I think part of the 'class warfare' subtext is simple. "There has never been any class in America since the Civil war and all men are created equal with equal opportunity." This myth, in one form or another, is believed by many. The corrilary is that anyone who makes any noises about helping the poor actually believes there is a disadvantaged class in America, and not just people who are lazy/stupid/trailer trash. That they are trying to drive a wedge into American society by drawing attention to wealth divisions and creating an 'illusion' of class.

The other half of the subtext of course is that 'Class Warfare' is a Marxist concept, and is therefore the mark of the Communist. Are you a Communist? Do you want to take the white and blue from our flag and leave it RED? Yeah, I bet you would, because you're a filthy commie who believes in the myth that we have CLASSES in AMERICA.