Asymmetrical class warfare
The media are outraged at the "class warfare" supposedly present in President Obama's budget plans. In the past few days alone, Michelle Bernard said Barack Obama "was almost declaring class warfare" in his speech to Congress; CNBC's Carlos Quintanilla said, "I don't want to call it class warfare, although that's what it may end up being in the end, this debate over wealth redistribution"; the AP's Jennifer Loven asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, "Are you all worried at all that that kind of argument, that 'class warfare' argument could sink the ability to get some of these big priorities through?" Politico ran a Jeanne Cummings article headlined "Class warfare returns to D.C." And this afternoon, MSNBC joined the pile-on, with a segment asking: "Is there a war against the wealthy? Do we have a class war developing?"
What sparked this sudden concern about "class warfare"? President Obama indicated that in order to fund things like health care, the very wealthiest Americans (individuals who make more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000) might have to pay slightly more in taxes, via the expiration of President Bush's tax cuts for those earners. Under this plan, the wealthiest Americans (again, those making more than $200,000) would be subject to the same income tax rate they paid in the 1990s -- when, it should be remembered, the rich got richer and the economy did quite well.
If this plan -- raising taxes slightly on people who make more than $200,000 a year in order to pay for things like health care for people who don't -- sounds familiar, it's because Obama campaigned on it for roughly two years. Conservatives, amplified by the news media, ridiculed it with labels like "socialism" and "class warfare" and used all kinds of scary rhetoric. And the American people voted for it anyway.
So it's a bit odd to see all this media angst over the idea that Barack Obama's plans to do something he said he would do -- and something the American public supported.
Cummings' Politico article is the oddest of all, promoting the "class warfare" theme with a series of misguided and nonsensical grievances. She began by complaining, essentially, of being insufficiently surprised by Obama's plans:
Obama's creative juices seemed to run dry as he turned Thursday to his party's most predictable revenue enhancer: taxing the wealthy.
The result: an instant revival of an old and predictable Washington debate.
It's too bad this bores Cummings so badly, but somehow I doubt that either Barack Obama or the American people consider "keeping Jeanne Cummings on the edge of her seat" among their top priorities.
Instead, most people probably want to know more basic things about Obama's plans: how they will be affected, whether it will work, what the gains will be, and at what cost. Sadly, despite writing more than 1,000 words, Cummings never comes close to answering any of those questions -- or even, really, to trying.
Instead, she opined that Obama's proposals brought "reminders of how fresh Obama's gains are and how fleeting they could become if he loses the aura of bringing a new style of leadership to the White House." It isn't particularly clear what that means, though presumably if Obama accomplishes universal health care and gets the economy moving, few will care about his "style" in doing so.
Later, Cummings reported that a think-tank policy expert said Obama had "argued that containing health care costs is essential to economic recovery." But is containing health care costs essential to recovery? Cummings didn't so much as hint at the answer. Actually, she didn't even acknowledge that it was a question.
Instead, Cummings continued to emphasize her boredom: "[N]o amount of spin or recalibration could fuzz up the flashback to previous Democratic administration's fiscal policy when Obama unveiled his spending plan."
Now, first of all, she hadn't identified any misleading "spin" previously, so that word is just tossed in as an unsubstantiated pejorative. But more importantly: Why does the "flashback" to Bill Clinton's fiscal policy need "fuzzing up"? It was, after all, rather more successful than the fiscal policies that followed. Cummings, of course, doesn't address the efficacy of that policy; she just complains that it isn't new and exciting. Well, fine, but few economists think the goal of fiscal policy should be to entertain Politico reporters.
Cummings' article actually got worse from there. Take, for example, this passage:
Some economists argue that the anticipation of a return to higher tax rates may be enough to thwart critical investments and purchases.
For instance, the White House has been working for months to get the nation's banks to begin lending again and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently announced a new government program aimed at getting loans to small business and to car and house buyers.
And who are the people out there today with the cash -- and confidence -- to spend? Most often they are people and families with earnings ranked in the top echelons and who will be subject to the Obama tax hike.
It may be true that "some economists" argue that taxing people who make more than $200,000 at the rate at which they were taxed during the 1990s boom "may" thwart investments and spending. But Cummings doesn't tell us who these economists are or quote their arguments in any way. Nor does she tell us if this is a mainstream view among economists, or a fringe view. Nor does she offer the counterargument.
Though her next paragraph begins with the words "for instance," it doesn't actually provide an "instance" of the assertion that comes before it. And the third paragraph suggests that the key to economic stimulus is keeping money in the hands of the wealthy so they can spend it. This runs counter to the widely held view that the way to jump-start the economy is to ensure that the poor and middle class have money to spend -- because unlike the wealthy, who have enough money to both spend and save, the poor and middle class will actually spend it. That's why economists like Mark Zandi -- an adviser to John McCain's campaign, not a knee-jerk liberal -- say that things like food stamps and unemployment benefits are more stimulative than tax cuts.
But none of those basic facts make an appearance in Cummings' article; instead, she offers poorly considered platitudes on behalf of the wealthy.
Speaking of "the wealthy," Cummings doesn't bother to tell us who they are. She refers to "the wealthy" and "wealthy earners" and "people and families with earnings ranked in the top echelons" and "wealthy households," but never tells us what "wealthy" means. It means people who make more than $200,000. It is important to spell that out: A Time poll in 2000 found that 19 percent of Americans thought they were among the richest one percent of Americans, and another 20 percent expected they would get there one day. News reports that refer simply to tax increases on "the wealthy" or even "the richest 1 percent" don't really inform; they confuse. They lead large numbers of readers to incorrectly believe they will be subject to tax increases.
But the real problem with Cummings' article -- and with the rest of the week's news reports about "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" -- is that they frame Obama's proposals in such negative terms. It's hard to think of a single example of tax or spending policy that doesn't in some way "redistribute wealth." Some redistribute wealth upward, some redistribute wealth downward. But the media only seem to break out the "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" pejorative when the wealth in question is heading to those who are not already wealthy.
(At this point, it should be noted that big-name political reporters earn considerably more money than most of the people who read and watch their reports. According to Sean Quinn at FiveThirtyEight.com, one reporter asked after Gibbs' briefing yesterday: "Did you notice all the questions about taxes came from reporters making over $250,000 a year, especially the TV guys?")
Warren Buffett, who knows a thing or two about wealth, has noted that because of the way the tax code is structured, he effectively pays taxes at a lower rate than the secretaries who work for him, concluding: "There's class warfare, all right. But it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
One reason they're winning is that the news media do not use the loaded phrases "class warfare" and "redistribution of wealth" to describe things like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the home mortgage deduction (which favors those who are wealthy enough to buy homes over those who are not) or countless other policies that benefit wealthier Americans at the expense of those who are less fortunate. Instead, the media pretend this is a one-sided war -- as though the wealthy are being unfairly assaulted by an army of bullying waitresses and janitors and farmers and teachers.
Another reason is articles like today's Washington Post front-pager. The Post tells us in paragraph one that Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy and waits until paragraph 18 to reveal that he plans to make permanent a tax credit for low- and middle-income workers. A tax increase that applies to almost nobody -- that leads the article. A tax credit that applies to much of the nation's workforce? Buried 18 paragraphs in.
And like this Los Angeles Times article, which announces near the beginning that Obama's budget "would raise taxes, redistribute income, spend more on social programs than on defense" and quotes House Republican leader John Boehner saying, "The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it" -- without making clear that this is true only if you are among the very small number of very wealthy people whose taxes would go up. In the process, the Times twice refers to income "redistribution" and quotes another Republican congressman invoking the specter of "class warfare."
They're winning, in large part, because they have the media on their side.
Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
When I look at some of the mainstream media reporting these days, I sometimes feel like I'm looking at those old propaganda pamphlets from the 18th and 19th centuries we used to see in the history books.
That was a little easier to understand, when most people didn't have access to many different sources of information, and when it took days or weeks for news to travel a few hundred miles. The people with the resources and money and printing presses could keep the rest fighting against each other pretty easily.
I have a harder time understanding it today. There's no excuse for the average American to believe some of this stuff except for fear, laziness and willful ignorance.
Another question that needs an answer is.....
Who the heck is calling the shots for the media still?
I swear.... it seems that, other than a few bright spots on MSNBC... that the whole of the media gets its talking points...
The wording may be different on each seperate channel.... but the message is clear:
Obama, like Clinton, must be destroyed... no matter what!
Only this time.... one might think the media would come to realize that We the People... well... the 73% of us that approve of Obama ain't listening to their garbage...... no more!!
The hypocrites will sell anything with President Obama's image but when it comes to expressing the will of the people vis a vis his popularity he must be stopped.
"... us that approve of Obama ain't listening to their garbage...... no more!!"
-
But ARRRRGH, Capt., WE is FUNDING it. Pouring at least a BILLION DOLLARS CASH -- every YEAR, into every CHANNEL -- whether we LISTEN or NOT! ... as long as we PAY Cable TV fees for the bundled 'package.'
BOYCOTT Pay TV (cable and dish). Entirely BOYCOTT Pay TV.
Bankrupt the propaganda rightist extremist organ grinders right along with newspapers.
STOP BUYING IT -- every INDIVIDUAL must ACT -- this means YOU -- else all the Shocked! Shocked! melodrama of What 'They' Get Away With is only so much more hollow hypocrisy.
"the wealthiest Americans would be subject to the same income tax rate they paid in the 1990s -- when, it should be remembered, the rich got richer and the economy did quite well."
This little nugget -- seldom heard -- is what makes my blood boil. Tax increases on the rich don't just help the majority, they help everybody. The rich historically do better under democrats than republicans.
Thus today's republican party has no reason at all to exist. The rich should be donating more heavily to democratic campaigns. The corporate media's insipid lying should favor the liberal agenda. Special interest groups should be lobbying for liberal causes. If everyone voted their own interests, Obama would have received 99.9% of the popular vote.
And if your #1 mission in life is to coddle the rich and tuck them in gently at night (and there are a whole lot of you out there), vote Democrat.
No matter who wins in class warfare, the rich get ahead. The only question is whether the poor joins them.
Well and thorughly said.
Word. It. Up. I don't even have to post my outrage now.
Fantastic post.
No there is no war being waged on the rich, all that is being done is getting them to BEAR THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE TAX BURDEN. They have had things their way for the last 30 years since REGAN, and they see the sands shifting and their scared.
Please, the fairness thing just lets everybody theory-fight, and nobody wins.
Raising taxes on the rich works great in practice whether it's fair or not.
We (the average working Americans) have been the victims of class warfare for the last eight years. Bush told us that if we gave the super-rich a tax break then the economy would explode with prosperity. This was clearly wrong. All available data says so.
What I want is some guest to ask the reporter how much they personally saved under the Bush tax plan and what more they will have to pay under Obama.
You said it exactly right, and I was about to copy and paste what you wrote, at the top of my comment and in agreement with yours, when I decided to paraphrase you somewhat, and twist the words to my own style (like a copyright thief would):
"We (average working Americans) are already engaged in a 'class war', but not of our making. This supposed 'war' is not made by us, but has been made against us, these past eight BUSH CHENEY REPUBLICAN years. It's us on the defensive and fighting back: it's us who were invaded, and who were made 'war' against."
I don't mean to flatter myself, but take what I just wrote and ask ten average working Americans if they agree at all with it, and I'll bet that not only at least seven (and probably eight and maybe more) would agree, but several of them would say:
"Whoa, that is true! I don't often hear folks talk like that in public, and so I hadn't given it enough thought to form the words myself... but yes, you bet, if there's some kind of 'class' or 'economic war' going on in America, then it's being waged against me! I'm on the defensive! If it's some kind of 'economic war', then I'm the one who's been invaded!"
And it's the truth, too: all it requires is to be said in public, and watch the popular chorus begin, as more and more working Americans chime in and agree, and sing the refrain...
"If there's any kind of 'class war' going on in America, then it's a 'war' of BUSH CHENEY and every REPUBLICAN who followed them (and that's every REPUBLICAN in Congress), it's a 'war' of them against me... they started it, and it's been ongoing for several years now... I'm the one on the defensive! I'm the one who's been made 'war' against, and who's been invaded!" [sung to the tune of "John Brown's Body"]
It's just the truth, that's all... ask regular folks, they'll tell you.
Additionally: In this supposed "class" or "economic war", that if it is anything real then it has been initiated against the average American worker, can a person get killed in this kind of "war"?
I mean, killed like a U.S. Soldier can get killed in IRAQ? Killed like the more than four thousand U.S. Soldiers (almost universally from poor and working families) in IRAQ?
Is President Obama's supposed "class war" anything as deadly as IRAQ?
IRAQ: the real war that killed real Americans and drained a trillion dollars of real money from our U.S. Treasury, and was designed and executed by BUSH and CHENEY and every last REPUBLICAN in Congress, and is no small part of why we are in the economic difficulty we are in.
Is President Obama's supposed "class war" anything like the deadly and costly REPUBLICAN real war and real invasion and real occupation of IRAQ?
[p.s.: I hate to hear the word "war" trivialized, as our hack and ignorant American media trivializes it, not just now but for years now.]
For the last 28 years: the Busitonomics were originally Reaganomics:
1. Spend all your savings,
2. Quit your job, and,
3. Your income will INCREASE.
Just eight years? Out of curiosity, how old are you? W. borrowed this from Reagan and just rephrased it. If you over 30, 35 you might remember: This is the same trickle-down economic theory (VOODOO economics as Bush'41 called it - great man) that was proposed back in 1980. It's unsustainable and history has born it out: Reagan had recessions. Bush'41 lost his bid for reelection due to one, Bush '43 had several. The only president in the past 28 years NOT to have to deal with a recession on his watch was BILL CLINTON!
(And yet just today my mother suggested that it was somehow OBAMA's fault that the stock market is still down. Uh - This thing started back in SEPTEMBER? Obama wasn't even leading in the polls until AFTER that first, big 700 pt. plunge in the Dow. [No, this is worse, it just keeps going down!] Ok... And what policies has he passed in his FIVE WEEKS in offcie that somehow have sustained this situation for the past FIVE MONTHS? [...] Yeah, didn't think so. By her logic, W. should be a failure and Bill Clinton the best president dince Lincoln. But no...
You see in conserva-logic, anything good in the economy is only to the president's credit if he is a Republican. And anything bad (even when the IS nothing bad) can only be the fault of the president if he is a Democrat. (See how objective that is? Won't take much to win over someone who thinks like that, huh?) ('THINKS' gives them waaay too much credit though.)
I really don't understand how anyone with two brain cells to bounce together can be a Republican anymore. I really don't know how.
An unintentionally revealing answer from todays Washington Post chat with Reporter Ed O'Keefe
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/02/26/DI2009022603131.html
Republicans "raised concerns" about class warfare, and the lazy press dutifully aired their concerns for them.
First, both Ferrari's are in the shop at the same time, now they expect me to pay taxes like the little people.
The horror. The horror.
Yeah the disconnect between the amount of reporting about the tax hikes and the number of people who actually WILL get a tax hike is very telling.
Meanwhile, the media virtually ignores that the vast majority of tax payers will get a tax CUT.
The baloney being spread about 'raising taxes' on the rich will have an adverse effect in trying to fix our current mess is just plain ridiculous. When will these tax hikes take place...2011-2012??? I know they are not tomorrow or this year. Which means the wealthy IS keeping their money. But it doesn't seem to be making its way into the market. Why all the misinformation? MMFA should investigate the exact date that taxes will go back to their pre-Bush cuts. I'm too lazy. And my royal staff, well, they've been laid-off.
The Colonel mentioned this above...I was going to reply to him but I am trying to be reply responsible and save them for another time.
The baloney being spread about 'raising taxes' on the rich will have an adverse effect in trying to fix our current mess is just plain ridiculous. When will these tax hikes take place...2011-2012???
In the year 2011, when people start paying their taxes, around April, the first revenue from this new rate will be collected.
Thanx Truth....so the complaints that raising taxes during a recession have no play in this until 2011....
It's irrelevant anyway. Raising the top tax to 50% this year won't touch the recession in the slightest way.
The economy is only about money that moves. The wealth of the rich is like a huge sand dune where only the top shifts. If the main bulk of their wealth moved, trickle-down would have worked.
That's right! Instead that "trickle" is just the ghost of Ronald Reagn peeing down your back!
ok i was censored on the last one, I'll be nice
Yes it's war. "War on Greed",
There has always been class warfare in the United States. I'm sure many of you have read this book, but if not check out A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. He is right on the money.
Also, here is a clip from an interview he did October 24, 2008 about taxes and class warfare that I found interesting.
This is scary to me. Scary that people in leadership in this country are so incredibly ignorant and un-educated that they have no idea at all what socialism actually is or means.
Anything that is not completely 100% Reagonomics is socialism, in these opinions.
These are nothing more than:
1. The return to the tax rates on the highest wage earners from the 1990s
2. Temporary necessary moves to save collapsing parts of our economy
3. Our tax rate is ALREADY tilted higher to the higher wage earners
FRIGGIN RELAX!
Um..... NO.... I won't relax.... you relax!! Sit back and learn something...
Obama's plan is to raise the maximum marginal tax rate of all dollars earned over $3.2 MILLION from 34% to 39% .... hardly enough if you ask me... exactly how is that taking away from someone??
How much is enough? $10 Million? $200? $1 Billion? At what point are willing to allow yourself to come to choose to realize that unless you truly see yourself making that kind of money... you have nothing to fear!
Besides.... Pre-Reagan... the marginal rate was 71%
Under FDR's New deal... it was 91%....
I really don't understand people like you mk3872.... unless you are one of the lucky ones making the kind of scratch that will be effected... as I said... nothing to fear...
Of course... I get the feeling that you are also the kind of person that get as hysterical about the so-called Death Tax... or as normal people call it... the Inheritance Tax.... which only effects those Estates worth MORE than $5 Million...
So unless you figure your net worth will be that much... you have little to fear... of course... even if you are one lucky enough to be wroth this much...
Why should you care.... you'd be dead anyways before it effected you!
Uh... I think MK was telling the RICH (and their lackies in the media) to relax. Unless I'm much mistaken (and it DOES happen) I think he's on our side with this one. I still like your post, but... I think you might have him confused with someone else.
Yeah.... I know..... :(
I realized my mistaken identity of Mk earlier with an above post to Brabantio from his reply to me pointing out my mistake in the first place...
And unlike a conservative... my apology to Mk is actually an apology to Mk and not the fake usless kind of a rightwinger.
Another great essay. Thanks Mr. Foser.
The refusal to except funds extending unemployment compensation is class warfare. And the media is squealing like stuck pigs over an inconsequential tax on those whose "work" consists in investing their personal wealth in order only to increase their wealth, creating nothing but a bigger pile of dead capital?
Are all those so-called "journalists" worried that they'd lose their jobs if they don't continue the far-right lunatic fringe propagandizing?
CaptFoster
"Anything that is not completely 100% Reagonomics is socialism, in these opinions."
Mk was talking about people who are screaming about "socialism". He's saying the plan is not socialism, which I think you would agree with.
Brab....
As you can see... I wrote that reply to Mk's post at 3:15 AM .... I had just got home from work...
I obviously misread the exact wording of his post... and for that...
Mk3872.... I do apologize for snapping at you. While my post still stands for what I am trying to convey... I aimed it toward you and that was wrong.
Back to you Brab... thank you for pointing out my mistake.
Of course there is a war against the wealthy. They already pay a higher percentage towards taxes. How is that fair? Just because they succeeded?
They've been rewarded already: they've been given an awful lot of money. The reward system succeeds admirably in that regard.
But you believe the rewards should never end. Because they're successful, they should continue to be feted and protected and they shouldn't be called on to help the nation in trouble.
Let's not even talk about the heiresses and the CEO's who take multimillion dollar bonuses for being caretaker's of someone else's success. Let's stick with the 'earners'.
If these people are geniuses and heroes, we give them a reward that enables them to never do anything else. And then you justify it by saying they create jobs and great new things! So don't tax them more!
If they create great new things, then they'll get rewarrded some more. With a lot of money.
If the system gives you a million dollars, it's a reward. If it gives you $875,000, it's still a reward. A big reward. And it's a reward made possible by Infrastructure, education, stability, and things like limited liability corporations that shield investors, and bankruptcy laws.
The reward for success is money. That's it. Adjusting the amount doesn't make it punishment.
Ugh. Another unpaid sponsor of the rich. Because the rich aren't powerful enough by themselves, I guess.
Why don't you GET RICH FIRST, then tell us how fair it is?
Anyway, the answer is the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism: a rich person is still rich after taxes.
I don't usually do this, Schmed, but you just got flagged.
Flagged for what, getting you annoyed? No offense, and I don't support his "view" but can't anyone leave well enough alone. If you want to de-cry the press jumping on a bandwagon, then take a moment and see how much your own reaction privileges this kind of "baiting". FWIW.
Did you read what Schmendrik wrote? (It's been deleted) I'm not flagging steeve. But if you are defending schmed, tell us what relevance schmed had to the discussion?
shouldn't you be on worldnetdaily. or thepowerline or some other neo con pump job, rather than bloggin here?
Yes. That's the right idea. Paris Hilton is the picture of the American Dream, struggling to succeed until finally she caught a break. How dare we take a somewhat higher percentage of her money than we already take! Rich people have expensive accountants they pay to figure out how to get them out of paying taxes, and oftentimes wind up paying less in taxes than the middle class. You've never heard Warren Buffett describe how he pays less taxes than his secretary, have you? Of course there is a class war. The wealthy started it thousands of years ago. The only reason they've been winning for so long is that they have pathetic cretins like you defending them. You seem to think of the top 1% in this country as a special club where only the best and brightest reside. It's not. It's just aristocracy, and I can assure you that none of those aristocrats will ever take care of you the way you worry about them.
Now now ButteryPat...
It's not Shmendrik's fault that he has fallen victim to one of the largest scams ever attempted to convince We the People that the American dream is to become rich and famous... and that if those of us struggling were to just allow the rich to become richer... that someday... Shmendrik may just be.... one of those lucky few that become rich enough to make it and that somehow by becoming rich we will not like paying taxes either!
As for the American dream.... I think Thom Hartmann said it best... I'm paraphrasing here...
"The American dream is to have a chance to grow old, have a decent job, to be able to look back at a decent life of hard work (not the pathetic Bush kind of hard work), a home, a secure retirement, and that he/she may take a vacation now and then throughout life."
The idea of making it big is as much a fantasy as the concept of American Exceptionalism.... or its cousin... Rugged Individualism!
Don't believe everything you hear from Rush. The types of income the rich have, like inheritance and dividends are less likely to be taxed. And what about state, local, payroll and sales taxes? Wasn't there a war when President Legacy Scholarship was busy shutting down strikes and reclassifying workers so they wouldn't get overtime pay?
ummm what planet are y ou from again......didn they get a huge tax cut? i mean yeah they are stillpaying higher rates but thats the way it should be.
oh wait i forgot your plugging for the neo cons. silly me.
im going to borrow a phrase fromone who is in the Pantheon of neo cons
your a pinhead!
They don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to pay decent wages, and GOD FORBID they pay for american labor. So forget fair - if there's no decent wages, and no gov't sepodning where do they think their incomes will come from? It has nothing to do with FAIR. It has to do with SUSTAINABILITY. If you and your lot had the slightest concept of how macroeconimics worked you'd realize how stupid you sound to those of us who do. WHERE DO THEY ALL THEIR MONEY CAME FROM? DID IT JUST GROW ON TREES?! FALL FROM THE SKY?! NO. It came from people earning high wages they don't want to pay and is supported by government spending which is supported by taxes they don't want to pay. Well... IF THEY HAVE ALL THE MONEY, WHO IS GOING TO BUY THE GOODS OR SERVICES THAT THEIR COMPANIES OFFER?! HOW WILL THEY MAKE ANY MORE INCOME?!
They should PAY because it is in their interests. It's the only way their incomes can be sustained. GOOD WAGES and GOV'T SPENDING. Their just to blinded by their greed to stop and see that. Or worse - not that they have all the money they really don't care about MORE, just as long as no one else gets any and cathces up a little. They're either evil or stupid, so take your pick.
And don't be such a shmendrik!
No one succeeds without standing on someone else's shoulders. One person's success usually requires the labor of many people.
Shmendrik
"Of course there is a war against the wealthy. They already pay a higher percentage towards taxes. How is that fair? Just because they succeeded?"
Because they have more disposable income and can afford to contribute more. It's not like they won't have perfectly comfortable lives after taxes or anything.
For sheer comedy, I found Judy Woodruff's interview with Peter Orzag on the PBS News Hour sadly hilarious. She was practically begging Orzag "don't raise my taxes" in her whiniest Beltway voice. Beltway journalists are fiercely afraid of having to pay more taxes; I really think that's all they care about.
I think the conservative-Republican party, or whatever they wish to call themselves today, are reaching for anything to get us working folk to fight amongst ourselves. Sorry, but that's not going to happen. See what they fail to realize we working stiffs have been paddling this boat for a long time. We know how to live with less and adjust when necessary. It's the so-called I-think-I'm-rich crowd that where the fight is going to be. Like Buffet said, you'll see who's been swimming naked. Now they will see that all of them don't look so good in bikinis; maybe some of them would be better off not going to the beach at all!
"Of course there is a war against the wealthy. They already pay a higher percentage towards taxes. How is that fair? Just because they succeeded?"
1) Because they can.
2) Because we are all members of the same nation.
3) Because it's moral.
4) Let me guess, are you one of the 19% who think they are in the top 1% of incomes or of the 20% who expect to be one day?
Class warfare is a republican dog whistle. Although what is implied is warfare of the masses against the elites, it is couched in such loose terms as to incite a simple "us versus them" mentality by cultivating the innate fear of "the other". Meanwhile, the actual, ulterior meaning is to alert the elites that it is time for them to engage in class warfare, a sort of call to arms to wealthy republicant elites.
They are declaring war against us. Thats what this is all about. CPAC was the parallel declaration of war among the ground-pounders of the republicant party and their demogogues, Rush and his ilk.
the question I pose to this tax issue, is not an Obama vs Bush thing in my eyes all of govt taxes too much. However with that said I don't have a problem raising the income tax on the very wealthy pick any figure 40/45/50% let us agree that that is fine. My question is why do they have to be taxed multiple times on the same money? If I am fortunate enough to invest TAXED dollars and make money why tax it again, and when I die and leave that money/house/estate to my loved ones what gives the govt the right to TAX it AGAIN. I've already paid taxes on that money.
but you are not taxed on the money you invest. anything but. it's called capital "gains". the gain is over and above what you invest. you invest ten thousand and make two thousand profit, the tax is on the two thousand, not twelve thousand. and if you lose, you can write it off against other gains, or take a set amount every year off your other income.
I don't have a problem raising the income tax on the very wealthy pick any figure 40/45/50% let us agree that that is fine.
Are you for real, Frank? And who would you consider "wealthy" as long as your just pulling out random numbers? I do not agree that is fine. I don't really understand what your complaining about as you have no problem with the govt taxing the wealthy, but whine about taxes on estates. Just shut up and pay them, that's what you've basically stated. What gives the govt the right? They do.
No, you haven't. You're referring to the capital gains tax, and you're only taxed on money that you make from the investment, not on the investment itself.
Thanks for this excellent analysis piece. The Post and LA Times articles illustrate how badly the newspapers are failing the common person. No wonder those two papers are dwindling.
So so true that the class warfare has been going on for a long time and it is a secretive hidden behind the scenes thing.
This became apparent to me last year at New School conference on Academic Freedom which spelled out the methodological way for 30 yrs conservative movements have dismantled higher education and made it more vocational training for jobs than education for democracy and real thinkers about social justice or equality matters.Kids are motivated for education to get jobs, and humanities courses which teach to think, and communicate are dismantled from the curriculum.
Today, 60% of higher ed happens through adjunct faculty, not on tenure tracks like in the old days. They have no protections for the kinds of research they do that may challenge the status quo. This has been achieved by funding power of private donors to universities who advance their own business objectives, and systematic breaking down budgets for higher ed at state and federal legislative levels. And also, funding for social science research which may show something about how conditions have changed for different segments of citizens is dependent on donors to universities. It was higher ed and its budgets that was a major target of Ronald Reagan to dismantle.
So, John McCain can talk all he wants about Community College educations in his campaign, because they prepare people to do jobs in the economy, but between the lines, they don't bother to train people about ethical or moral philosophy, history, civics or justice. Community college educations do not create thinkers, communicators and activists who would challenge social conditions, which remain the reserve of elite educations, but instead create workers with technocratic skills.
The other example is the fact that Ayn Rand has been promoted for decades to young people as a value system. Today, BB&T Foundation uses tax exempt money to build so called economics institutes at colleges all over the country which put forth the ideas of Ayn Rand. This is done against faculty wishes which are more for a balanced presentation of all kinds of economics ideas so that students have more critical facility about economic systems in general. You can google around and find articles about all of this and the number of these institutes set up at 2nd and 3rd tier colleges during the last several years. The same is true with Hayek clubs set up at colleges 50 yrs ago by the conservative funders. Ayn Rand's ideas glorify the entrepreneur above the average worker, and also promote self-interest as the greatest motivator for human beings for the betterment of all society. Alan Greenspan himself claims she was his greatest influence about free-markets. We can see what that value system got us.
Pat Choate wrote about this so well in "dangerous business" in which he says it was the American middle-class, with their democratic institutions like labor unions, schools, churches and social institutions, and all of the taxes in America which paid for universal education, higher ed, retirement security, and healthcare paid for by the private sector, which was really the drain on the business man that Reagan talked about, and that ultimately drove American businesses to countries where there were no social structures to pay for. Advantages for the Middle-class represent lost profits to entrepreneurs. The middle-class has also been historically the source for all ideas for social change, and the agitation to bring it on. The rise of Milton Friedman's economic philosophies supported these goals to a tee, and that is why they are taught at business schools as orthodox truth, and brainwashing generations of graduate students and future business leaders into simplistic thinking about economics.
The simple fact is, conservative voters have the philanthropic money for funding higher ed, they also wield power in the legislatures, so they have systematically dismantled the ed system that can train a new generation of citizens to challenge economic ideas or the way our government or society run. There has been a war against the middle-class for decades, and keeping them in low wage jobs, low budget educations is the way to win back the money. Remember, the conservative movement in the US was against the one-roomed school house! Also, the requirement of mass movement of people from one end of this continent to the other to find jobs in large cities, has dismantled families and social networks that were in place for generations, further weakening the family and the social institutions that support middle class people. All of this is viewed as progress, but those of us who are parents know how our children's upbringings in faceless suburbs differed from our own from just a generation or so away.
We've got to reframe this "class warfare" to what it really is and really has been all along. A prosperous middle-class is a profit drain, and also a source of social change that conservatives by definition can't live with!
Nice post.
The lower classes have been subsidizing the top classes from the beginning of this country. In a society where we are told, for example, to get our health care from our employer those that work without obtaining health care are subsidinzing the bottom line of their employer. This is something that we've all been condtioned to accept. When workers work under the table they are usually paid pretty well because they are foregoing any ability to use their earning towards SS and retirement and health care. They are compensated. But when millions go to work for minimum wage where an "hours" formula is used, there is no compensation for receiving no bennies. We are just trained to accept it.
Thank you for your excellent analysis and writing. Please don't EVER put another photo of Bachman on your site. That woman makes me sick. There's no investigation necessary to determine that she's "Anti-american". Cheers, all.
What news channels are YOU watching? You have got to be kidding me! Real conservatives have to read news from across the pond or listen to the local and national radio for news. I cannot watch one tv station for accurate political news. I believe that someone needs to step up and sue these Obama networks for false advertising. They only expound on the lies.
Weebeast
"Flagged for what, getting you annoyed? No offense, and I don't support his "view" but can't anyone leave well enough alone."
Shmendrik made an unprovoked and excessive attack on another poster. It wasn't about his views, it was about his behavior. A pattern of such behavior gets one banned, but someone has to be flagged to establish that pattern.
I'm guessing weebeast thought I was flagging the post directly beneath schmedley's post. I don't think weebeast got to read the trollish taunt that has been deleted.
Obama will raise the top tiers of the marginal income tax rates to 36% and 39.6% while leaving those who earn under the $250,000 MAGI at today's rates. To get a clear perspective, a salaried person filing married joint and earning $100,000 a year compensation (with attendant deductions but not itemizing) will pay about $13,600 in federal taxes. That is, of course, less than a 14% actual tax rate. If this taxpayers has some kids, a mortgage, and gives to charity, his actual tax rate will be more like 11%.
Now, if you do make a lot more than the average joe, say $250,000 and up, the average joe makes about $30,000, you will pay a lot more in taxes. No doubt about it, you are the tax target and you will pay more for your success. That is what a progressive tax plan does, it progresses. But you have to make over $250,000 to get targeted under Obama's new plan.
But even if your $300,000 salary puts you into the 36% margin (you currently have to make more than $373,000 to reach the 39.6% margin) your actual tax rate is a little under 25%. If you earn a whopping $500,000 a year, you will pay an actual 31% in federal income tax.
Now let's assume Obama gets his whole package, unlimited Social Security/Medicare tax and a the return to the top marginal rates of 2001, and you live in a state that pays 10% state and local taxes. Then you are not a happy camper. At $500,000 a year AGI, you will pay, OMG, 43% in taxes ($216,778!).
Oh well, would it make you feel any better to know that if we applied the 1965-1980 tax charts, when the highest marginal federal income tax rate was 70%, you would have paid about 70% in actual total taxes, counting FICA, state and local ($352,460!).
And if we went back to 1964 and prior, there was a 79% top rate. So if you think the tax rate increases will be at an unprecedented level, you are very, very wrong! You're getting off easy, Bub!