Class Warfare

[JacobEzra.]

If you don't mind me asking, why are you so obsessed with abortion?
(You've brought abortion up before in discussions where it had no relevance.)

Maybe they just (correctly) feel that it's wrong to put their religious sentiments into law. There are people who hate abortion but wouldn't make it illegal for others, just as there are people who "personally" think homosexuality is wrong spiritually but won't try to force others to conform to their religion's standard, and just as I think that noodles are an abomination, yet I don't insist that other people refrain from eating them.

As an example of the fact that democrats are not really religious. If what you say is true, and also the Jesus wanted class warfare, then the religious democrats, following Jesus, would not use it in the law.

 

[JacobEzra.]

If Democrats were as openly affiliated with religion as Republicans are, then you might have a point. The only problem is Democrats aren't flaunting Jesus around as their poster boy for their morality.

And since democrats are not openly religious, why think Jesus is the inspiration for their wanting to tax the wealthy?

 

[Tellurian]

Um...raising taxes a couple of percentage points is not class warfare. You want class warfare, look at the Russian Monarchy.

From Democrats Hit Back On 'Class Warfare' Claims, Call Out GOP For Cutting Aid To Women And Children

On Monday, Obama unveiled his deficit reduction plan, the centerpiece of which is a new tax on income over $1 million. The White House is calling it "The Buffett Rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has said it's absurd that he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. The new rule is meant to prevent the wealthiest Americans from taking advantage of loopholes that tax investment earnings at lower rates than wages.

Republicans quickly responded to the plan by calling it "class warfare" -- a term used by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democrats are hitting back. Ryan Nickel, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee's Minority Staff, sent an email to Democratic press secretaries on Monday calling attention to dramatic cuts that Republicans have proposed to programs benefiting low- and middle-income Americans: "Are GOP cuts to WIC [Women Infants and Children], Pell Grants, Meals-on-Wheels, Low-Income Legal Services & Head Start 'Class Warfare'?"

Republican budget plans released this year have attempted to cut back on programs that disproportionately benefit low- and middle-income individuals -- especially women, children and senior citizens.

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives proposed cutting $20 million from the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food to low-income Americans. The reductions would have resulted in an estimated 81,000 individuals being cut out of the program.

Obama has responded to the Republicans' "class warfare" comments by saying, "Either we have to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, or we have to ask seniors to pay more for medicare, or gut education. This is not class warfare. It's math."

 

[Mister_T]

And since democrats are not openly religious, why think Jesus is the inspiration for their wanting to tax the wealthy?

You're missing the point: Democrats aren't using Jesus for inspiration or as a moral foundation for taxes (especially since Democrats lean secular), they're using Jesus to show the hypocrisy of hoarding extreme wealth and inflammatory stances against poor and lower class people...you know, the opposite of what Jesus preached.

 

[Revoltingest]

Heh, didn't see that one coming. Nice. I didn't think of lawyers or electricians, I suppose they (well, lawyers at least, I don't know how electricians do financially) would qualify as rich by most people's definitions.

It depends upon how they run their business. Those who work smart & don't drink away the profits do quite well.

Right, but the rich proportionally do more saving and importing, if I'm not completely and utterly mistaken. If you lower their taxes, they'll spend the money that they didn't spend on taxes on more savings and more imports, until they think that creating jobs would be profitable to them and America starts making decent products again.

The marginal tax rate drives investment, as does treating expenditures as capitalized or expensed.
Reduce the return on investment, & you reduce investment. I experience that first hand, & hope that you will too some day. (Note...that is not a curse.)

Of course, we need the people who are on their way to wealth (assuming we're sticking with capitalism), but the people who are already wealthy and not investing don't need to be given more money, is the thing. The ones that need money are the people who aren't wealthy but want to get somewhere in life, and the people who don't have money and want to do things like eat. We do a halfway-decent job of making sure everyone eats and has a roof over their heads, being a first-world country and all, but we could be doing better.

No big argument here.

The thing is, after people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Henry Ford become Microsoft, Apple, and Ford, the person that was once contributing to the economy has mainly become dead weight (economically speaking), because the profit motive tends to get more demanding as the company gets bigger, and they no longer need to be personally involved in their companies to continue to profit off of them.

Dead weight? Who else would run those engines of our economy?

At what point do we decide that someone is getting paid too much for what they do? Sure, Bill Gates has done a lot more for society than, say, a factory worker, but is his work millions of times more difficult to do than the typical worker's?

In a market economy, it isn't about the degree of difficulty, but rather the value of the contribution.
But were it so easy, why isn't every factory rat (a term of endearment, having been one) setting the world on fire with their innovations, skill & daring do?

 

[T-Dawg]

As an example of the fact that democrats are not really religious. If what you say is true, and also the Jesus wanted class warfare, then the religious democrats, following Jesus, would not use it in the law.

Democrats don't really claim to be religious, is the thing. There's a difference between being Christian and being a psychotic fundamentalist, even if I have difficulty seeing it at times.

The OP is wrong in claiming that Jesus is the primary inspiration behind taxing the wealthy, although frankly I'm baffled as to why the Republicans haven't adopted the economic policies Jesus advocates, with many of them claiming to be his followers and all.

It depends upon how they run their business. Those who work smart & don't drink away the profits do quite well.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "rich," then - when most people hear the word "rich," they think of the uber-wealthy types that don't have to work anymore to continue profiting. Lawyers are still contributing to society, even if people often make fun of their contribution.

The marginal tax rate drives investment, as does treating expenditures as capitalized or expensed.
Reduce the return on investment, & you reduce investment. I experience that first hand, & hope that you will too some day. (Note...that is not a curse.)

Hmm. From what you've told me, it looks like the solution is to tax useless assets, luxuries, and foreign imports much heavier, lower the capital gains taxes (but keep taxes on personal profits that aren't used to expand the business), and close tax loopholes.

Dead weight? Who else would run those engines of our economy?

The people who actually do run the engines of our economy - managers (I assume by "run" you mean "operate" and "direct," not "fuel," "build," etc). Small business owners generally manage their own resources and make investment decisions and carry risks, and that is their contribution to the economy. Once a business gets big enough, the owner will generally, out of necessity, delegate those tasks to other people, but it is still the owner that reaps the bulk of the profits from doing so. (Call me crazy, but I don't think Bill Gates singlehandedly micromanages all the affairs of Microsoft anymore.)
At this point, at least as far as I can tell, the owner's main contribution is having carried risk at some point in the past.

In a market economy, it isn't about the degree of difficulty, but rather the value of the contribution.

Right, but when you're getting paid roughly 300 times what the people you hire do, your contributions are probably being slightly over-valued. Remember, capitalism doesn't necessarily give pay by contribution when it comes to workers - it gives pay by how little the business owner can afford to give and still keep the worker, and it gives personal profit to executives by however much they decide should go to themselves instead of towards the expansion of their business.

But were it so easy, why isn't every factory rat (a term of endearment, having been one) setting the world on fire with their innovations, skill & daring do?

Some combination of them not having the ability (I know I don't), tuition being too expensive for an increasing number of people, and a lack of advertising ability. If there comes a day when only the wealthy can afford the education needed to function well in modern society, then only the wealthy will be able to grow wealthier, and social classes will be pretty much locked.
Then, even if the factory rat were to come up with the next Big New Thing, he'd be hard pressed to find anyone else who was interested. Wealthier people have connections and are more likely to be able to afford advertisements. I remember hearing about how Bill Gates started Microsoft with work he did in his spare time in his garage. Through his hard work, Microsoft slowly grew into what it is today. But, say that Bill Gates grew up in a time when there was already widely available computer technology. Do you think he would still be able to get a successful business started from scratch?

 

[Revoltingest]

Democrats don't really claim to be religious, is the thing.

Really? How is it that I know Obama is a Xian & Joe Lieberman is a Jew?
They're less in our faces about it, but it still appears to drive their agendas too.

There's a difference between being Christian and being a psychotic fundamentalist, even if I have difficulty seeing it at times.

The inability to see that difference suggests some room for growth.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "rich," then - when most people hear the word "rich," they think of the uber-wealthy types that don't have to work anymore to continue profiting. Lawyers are still contributing to society, even if people often make fun of their contribution.

How do you personally know who is contributing & who isn't?
What do you think will happen to the entrepreneurial spirit if everyone who works hard, invests money & takes risks must hand over their mature companies to someone else?

Hmm. From what you've told me, it looks like the solution is to tax useless assets, luxuries, and foreign imports much heavier, lower the capital gains taxes (but keep taxes on personal profits that aren't used to expand the business), and close tax loopholes.

Heaven help those people who work in "useless" industries.

Right, but when you're getting paid roughly 300 times what the people you hire do, your contributions are probably being slightly over-valued. Remember, capitalism doesn't necessarily give pay by contribution when it comes to workers - it gives pay by how little the business owner can afford to give and still keep the worker, and it gives personal profit to executives by however much they decide should go to themselves instead of towards the expansion of their business.

I found that it doesn't quite work that way.
Perhaps your experience in business is different.

Some combination of them not having the ability (I know I don't), tuition being too expensive for an increasing number of people, and a lack of advertising ability. If there comes a day when only the wealthy can afford the education needed to function well in modern society, then only the wealthy will be able to grow wealthier, and social classes will be pretty much locked.
Then, even if the factory rat were to come up with the next Big New Thing, he'd be hard pressed to find anyone else who was interested. Wealthier people have connections and are more likely to be able to afford advertisements. I remember hearing about how Bill Gates started Microsoft with work he did in his spare time in his garage. Through his hard work, Microsoft slowly grew into what it is today. But, say that Bill Gates grew up in a time when there was already widely available computer technology. Do you think he would still be able to get a successful business started from scratch?

People do. Look at Facebook.

 

[Random]

When the G.O.P. cries 'Class Warfare' they are only accusing others of waging what they in fact are waging, it's an age-old real politic. The Republican death cult hates the poor with a quasi-religious zeal and is busy allowing the speculator class to gut them and the middle class on behalf of its millionaire/billionaire benefactors whose interests they will go to any length to protect, that's the whole point of it operating an obstructionist Congress which blocks all real reform. If Obama had any guts, he would dissolve Congress by Executive Order and use military force if necessary to back it up, as it has become an unimpeachable impediment to the operations of democratic government. But he won't do that cos' he's a *****, unfortunately. There's only one woman who can save America from civil war now.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Obama has responded to the Republicans' "class warfare" comments by saying, "Either we have to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share, or we have to ask seniors to pay more for medicare, or gut education. This is not class warfare. It's math."

That's exactly my point. What was yours exactly?

 

[Revoltingest]

When the G.O.P. cries 'Class Warfare' they are only accusing others of waging what they in fact are waging, it's an age-old real politic.

It's always a safe bet that whatever tactic one party uses, the other will also be using.
Of course, they'll rationalize away the similarities. Each side must see itself as fundamentally different & better.

The Republican death cult hates the poor with a quasi-religious zeal and is busy allowing the speculator class to gut them and the middle class on behalf of its millionaire/billionaire benefactors whose interests they will go to any length to protect, that's the whole point of it operating an obstructionist Congress which blocks all real reform. If Obama had any guts, he would dissolve Congress by Executive Order and use military force if necessary to back it up, as it has become an unimpeachable impediment to the operations of democratic government. But he won't do that cos' he's a *****, unfortunately.

What an interesting take on things you have.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hey! I'm catching up with you in post count!
(I find it helps to stress quantity over quality.)

I find it best to focus on neither.

 

[Random]

It's always a safe bet that whatever tactic one party uses, the other will also be using. Of course, they'll rationalize away the similarities. Each side must see itself as fundamentally different & better.

What's that got to do with the Republicans waging class warfare?

What an interesting take on things you have.

Appreciate the insincerity, but that's what happens when you think outside the box, so to speak.

 

[Revoltingest]

What's that got to do with the Republicans waging class warfare?

Exactly!

 

[T-Dawg]

Really? How is it that I know Obama is a Xian & Joe Lieberman is a Jew?
They're less in our faces about it, but it still appears to drive their agendas too.

True.

How do you personally know who is contributing & who isn't?

I don't. But I can reasonably guess that people like Bill Gates aren't physically capable of several billion dollars worth of contribution by themselves.

What do you think will happen to the entrepreneurial spirit if everyone who works hard, invests money & takes risks must hand over their mature companies to someone else?

We're not asking them to hand over their companies to someone else (yet). We're asking them to pay more taxes on income not used for investment (or at least I am).

Heaven help those people who work in "useless" industries.

When did I call an industry itself useless? (A "useless asset" is something like a house that represents a large portion of money but doesn't actually generate any income. I think I learned the phrase from you, actually .)

I found that it doesn't quite work that way.
Perhaps your experience in business is different.

It's one of the basic things about capitalism - the goal of any businessman is to maximize profit. As a result, it would make sense to pay workers as little as they'll take for the job, so as to decrease costs.

People do. Look at Facebook.

What about it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't. But I can reasonably guess that people like Bill Gates aren't physically capable of several billion dollars worth of contribution by themselves.

In capitalism, wealth from past effort is a reward. It motivates us. If I couldn't keep the fruits of my labor, I wouldn't have worked so much & employed so many people.

We're not asking them to hand over their companies to someone else (yet). We're asking them to pay more taxes on income not used for investment (or at least I am).

The "yet" part is the scariest.

When did I call an industry itself useless? (A "useless asset" is something like a house that represents a large portion of money but doesn't actually generate any income. I think I learned the phrase from you, actually .)

I'm using "useless industry" to refer to industries which make "useless assets".
"Unproductive" would be a better description of a house, eh?

It's one of the basic things about capitalism - the goal of any businessman is to maximize profit. As a result, it would make sense to pay workers as little as they'll take for the job, so as to decrease costs.

Maximizing profit isn't the only goal....it's balanced against risk, tax consequences & cash flow schedule.

What about it?

Facebook is an example of a successful company started from scratch in the computer age.

 

[T-Dawg]

In capitalism, wealth from past effort is a reward. It motivates us. If I couldn't keep the fruits of my labor, I wouldn't have worked so much & employed so many people.

Right, but it seems kind of inefficient to continue to reward someone for something they aren't still doing.

It's a somewhat tricky issue, but I think people would still want to be fabulously wealthy even if "fabulously wealthy" meant having $100 million instead of $500 million (just making up numbers here, I have no idea where the traditional "uber-rich" line lies... it sure isn't at $250,000 though).
Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much incentive you give people to try and better themselves if they aren't able to. In order to be able to better yourself (financially), people have to be willing to buy whatever it is you're trying to sell, and for them to be willing to buy, they have to be able to buy (well, they could go into debt, but that bites them and the economy back later on). If we increase the purchasing power of those who have less, they will purchase more, which will not only benefit them, but also benefit whoever they buy products from.

The "yet" part is the scariest.

Collective/State ownership is a goal many of Us (whoever that is) have, and virtually none of Us think currently possible.

I'm using "useless industry" to refer to industries which make "useless assets".
"Unproductive" would be a better description of a house, eh?

Aren't they the same?

Maximizing profit isn't the only goal....it's balanced against risk, tax consequences & cash flow schedule.

Which are done because of the profit motivation. People take risks because they predict that the potential benefit (in the case of business, profit) outweighs the potential loss of the risk (loss of money). People think of taxes because it costs them money. Everything (excluding non-profit organizations) in the capitalist system that is provided by the private sector is done for the profit motive (at least, that's what's supposed to be the case in capitalism).

Facebook is an example of a successful company started from scratch in the computer age.

Ah.
I've always wondered, how does facebook make its money? As far as I know, it's always been free... maybe they just do advertisement services? (I wouldn't know, because I don't use it.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, but it seems kind of inefficient to continue to reward someone for something they aren't still doing.

Building for the future becomes a strong motivator once out in the working world. If that future is to be taken away because of the success which created it, there goes the point of all that work, money & risk.

It's a somewhat tricky issue, but I think people would still want to be fabulously wealthy even if "fabulously wealthy" meant having $100 million instead of $500 million (just making up numbers here, I have no idea where the traditional "uber-rich" line lies... it sure isn't at $250,000 though).

Collective/State ownership is a goal many of Us (whoever that is) have, and virtually none of Us think currently possible.

Yeah, that collective ownership approach hasn't worked out to well.

Aren't they the same?

A home is "useful", but it is "unproductive" at making income.

Which are done because of the profit motivation. People take risks because they predict that the potential benefit (in the case of business, profit) outweighs the potential loss of the risk (loss of money). People think of taxes because it costs them money. Everything (excluding non-profit organizations) in the capitalist system that is provided by the private sector is done for the profit motive (at least, that's what's supposed to be the case in capitalism).

The profit motive still isn't the only motive.

I've always wondered, how does facebook make its money? As far as I know, it's always been free... maybe they just do advertisement services? (I wouldn't know, because I don't use it.)

Beats me. I don't use it. Advertising?

 

[Valjean]

It was the rich that lobbied for the "free trade" that allowed them to send all our jobs overseas.

It was the rich that lobbied for the deregulation that caused our current recession, and, come to think of it, all the previous ones as well.

And it was the government that created the jobs -- CCC, WPA, &c. -- that kept the economy limping along and food on the tables during the last Republican, deregulation generated depression.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was the rich that lobbied for the "free trade" that allowed them to send all our jobs overseas.

It was the rich that lobbied for the deregulation that caused our current recession, and, come to think of it, all the previous ones as well.

And it was the government that created the jobs -- CCC, WPA, &c. -- that kept the economy limping along and food on the tables during the last Republican, deregulation generated depression.

That's one way to view it. But I watched business regulation greatly increase over the last 30+ years, much of it in ways which increased financial instability.
(Just look at the increase in volume of regulation in the CFR, even during the reign of Reagan & both Bushes.) And it continues to this day.
Example:
The fed is requiring banks to divest themselves of riskier commercial real estate loans or to impose more restrictions upon them.
As existing loans come up for renewal, banks are finding that they can't legally renew them at older affordable terms.
With money very hard to borrow from other sources, banks are foreclosing upon the property pledged as security.
In a nutshell, to avoid the risk of a loan's failure, the gov't is eliminating the risk of the loan by causing the very condition they want to avoid, ie, failure.
Things are getting worse....like pouring Obamoline on a burning Bush.

 

[T-Dawg]

Building for the future becomes a strong motivator once out in the working world. If that future is to be taken away because of the success which created it, there goes the point of all that work, money & risk.

We aren't going to be taking that future away. We're just going to be taxing more of it. It wasn't a problem back in the days before Republicans started enacting tax cuts.

Yeah, that collective ownership approach hasn't worked out to well.

Humans are not ready for it, that much is certain.