The problem is not the 1%, it is the 20%

[Kirkrapine]

That is, the upper and upper-middle classes. They are the ones whose political power, far out of proportion to their numbers, needs the be broken once and for all. They are the ones who need to be taxed out of existence as a class.

Trump’s plan mostly would benefit the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals. But Schumer’s Occupy-Wall-Street-like whack at the top 1 percent and defense of the so-called middle class is muddled in a different way. That’s because it isn't the super rich, but the upper middle class — representing the top 20 percent, or households making at least $117,000 a year — that disproportionately have been doing better than the rest of Americans, the bottom 80 percent. Their tax breaks are one reason why.

“The upper middle class, the top fifth, broadly, and above, not only maintain their position very nicely, but perpetuate it over generations more effectively than in the United Kingdom,” said Richard Reeves, a Brookings Institution scholar and author of "Dream Hoarders: How The American Upper Middle Class is Leaving Everyone in the Dust, Why That is a Problem, and What to Do About It". “And yet, that that’s not so widely known or seen as a problem, because of the kind of myth of classlessness that has developed in the U.S.”

Comments like Schumer’s — defending a blurrily defined middle class — are a perfect example of the myth of classlessness that is parsed by Reeves, who was born in Britain but became a U.S. citizen. The biggest picture statistic he cites to frame the problem of improperly dissecting the economy’s real winners and losers is pre-tax income growth between 1979 and 2013. The bottom 80 percent saw their incomes grow by $3 trillion, while the top 20 percent saw their incomes grow by $4 trillion. When you put this on a graph, the bottom four quintiles, or 20 percent sections, slope upward slightly. But not so with the upper middle class; people making roughly $120,000 a year or more.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That is, the upper and upper-middle classes. They are the ones whose political power, far out of proportion to their numbers, needs the be broken once and for all. They are the ones who need to be taxed out of existence as a class.

LOL...their political power is no greater than anyone one else's.

Why do they need to be taxed out of existence?

Why is their success bad?

 

[beew]

That is, the upper and upper-middle classes. They are the ones whose political power, far out of proportion to their numbers, needs the be broken once and for all. They are the ones who need to be taxed out of existence as a class.

I have no idea whose alt you are, nor if you share or have a tongue in cheek view of such communist ideas,
but your threads bring interesting topics for debate.

 

[Vman55]

That is, the upper and upper-middle classes. They are the ones whose political power, far out of proportion to their numbers, needs the be broken once and for all. They are the ones who need to be taxed out of existence as a class.

Why do you say that? Is it not fair for those who really make it to be successful?

 

[von_Bismarck]

I have no idea whose alt you are, nor if you share or have a tongue in cheek view of such communist ideas,
but your threads bring interesting topics for debate.

^ Dingbat.

 

[beew]

^ Dingbat.

Aww, Rob.
I'm starting to think that the Stainman "third world unwashed paki" slurs were just your attempt to flirt with me.

 

[Kirkrapine]

LOL...their political power is no greater than anyone one else's.

Oh yes, it is.

Why do they need to be taxed out of existence?

"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Louis Brandeis

Like any decent and rational person and any patriotic American, I choose democracy over plutocracy.

Why is their success bad?

For one thing, because it does the rest of us very little good, despite supply-side myths to the contrary. For another, in most such cases we are not talking about success, but hereditary possession -- which, again, does the rest of us very little good, and much harm.

 

[Kirkrapine]

I have no idea whose alt you are, nor if you share or have a tongue in cheek view of such communist ideas . . .

I believe a classless society is:
1. Possible.
2. Desirable.
3. Not what we have now.

That does not necessarily mean the Marxist-Leninist version of Communism is the best way to reach that goal. IMO, the whole socialist movement would have been better off without the pseudoscientific intellectual substructure Marx gave it. (And I also believe that the point of a classless society should not be to make everyone proletarian, it should be to make everyone bourgeois.)

But, you don't need to be a Marxist to know a class enemy when you see one.

 

[hobbit.]

LOL...their political power is no greater than anyone one else's.

Good point.
Just execute the bastards and spread their property amongst the rest.

can a camel pass through the eye of a needle?

can a rich man enter heaven? who knows? so lets send a lot of rich people to heaven and find out.

 

[hobbit.]

I believe a classless society is:
1. Possible.
2. Desirable.
3. Not what we have now.

That does not necessarily mean the Marxist-Leninist version of Communism is the best way to reach that goal. IMO, the whole socialist movement would have been better off without the pseudoscientific intellectual substructure Marx gave it. (And I also believe that the point of a classless society should not be to make everyone proletarian, it should be to make everyone bourgeois.)

But, you don't need to be a Marxist to know a class enemy when you see one.

in a nutshell just kill the rich.

 

[Kirkrapine]

can a camel pass through the eye of a needle?

In my experience, yes; but it won't be good for much afterwards.

 

[hobbit.]

In my experience, yes; but it won't be good for much afterwards.

would have to be a big needle or a cremated camel

 

[Kirkrapine]

would have to be a big needle or a cremated camel

All you need is a three-stage process involving a chainsaw, a wood chipper and a blender.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh yes, it is.

I'm sorry there is no evidence in there that in the US you get more votes the more money you have.

Everyone gets one.

"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-- Louis Brandeis

Like any decent and rational person and any patriotic American, I choose democracy over plutocracy.

You don't have to punish and oppress the producers of wealth to have a democracy.

The notion that you do is absurd.

For one thing, because it does the rest of us very little good.

It's not supposed to do the rest of us good.

it's their property to do what they want with....if they want to blow millions on coke and hookers while poor people starve that's their choice.

That's how individual rights and liberty work.

For another, in most such cases we are not talking about success, but hereditary possession.

Yes and no...you don't have to be rich to do middle class well.

But you do have to think like a finance minded person and being raised by people who have that figured out, being taught the knowledge of how to not suck with money is the real inheritance. Countless fortunes have been squandered by offspring who failed to grasp the concepts of not sucking with money. Inheritance is like the lottery, most of it is gone pretty quick once the real money maker dies or calls it quits unless someone sets things up so the money is protected from the idiot kids, grandkids etc.

(And I also believe that the point of a classless society should not be to make everyone proletarian, it should be to make everyone bourgeois.)

But you can't make everyone bourgeois via authoritarian force, no matter how many millions you slaughter it will just never happen.

You can only make everyone proletarian at best or starving to death at worst.

 

[hobbit.]

All you need is a three-stage process involving a chainsaw, a wood chipper and a blender.

or just a big fire, then pass the ashes through the needle. totaly organic.

 

[beew]

Billionaires and oligarchs - yes.

But overtaxing the upper middle class (which is made of mostly inteligentia: surgeons, lawyers, talented businnessmen, computer programmers or writers, the next Pavarotti) who make over 117.000 $ a year? So that their salaries get more in line with those of factory workers?
That's exactly what communists did.

I read a great explanation as to why these ideas are taking such a strong hold with the Left:
The tenure system and the underpaying of academics, which happened over the last 20 years.
Professors from Social sciences -who are disseminating these ideas- are the most underpayed of all academics, and are pissed off.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Billionaires and oligarchs - yes.

Yes what?

 

[Kirkrapine]

I'm sorry there is no evidence in there that in the US you get more votes the more money you have.

Money does not buy you more votes, but it does buy getting your way.

You don't have to punish and oppress the producers of wealth to have a democracy.

We are talking about the possessors, not the producers. Only one thing creates wealth: Labor. The "looters" and "takers" are real, but you won't find them in the 'hood, you will find them in the Hamptons.

And you do need to expropriate the possessors of wealth to have a democracy.

It's not supposed to do the rest of us good.

it's their property to do what they want with....if they want to blow millions on coke and hookers while poor people starve that's their choice.

That's how individual rights and liberty work.

Like any decent and rational person and any patriotic American, I choose democracy over libertarianism.

 

[Kirkrapine]

I read a great explanation as to why these ideas are taking such a strong hold with the Left:
The tenure system and the underpaying of academics, which happened over the last 20 years.
Professors from Social sciences -who are disseminating these ideas- are the most underpayed of all academics, and are pissed off.

Actually, it's because the real wages of everybody who has to work for a living have been stagnant since the 1970s. All the benefits of growth have gone to the upper classes.

 

[tubby424]

20 %

Are you aware the the top 20% of all wage earners pay something like 80% of the federal taxes collected ?? I do not know the exact numbers but I think the ones I quoted are pretty close.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Are you aware the the top 20% of all wage earners pay something like 80% of the federal taxes collected ?? I do not know the exact numbers but I think the ones I quoted are pretty close.

That is unimportant; tax rates can always be adjusted.

 

[Liar]

Are you aware the the top 20% of all wage earners pay something like 80% of the federal taxes collected ?? I do not know the exact numbers but I think the ones I quoted are pretty close.

How many % of the money do they have?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Money does not buy you more votes, but it does buy getting your way.

And votes are the standardized currency for political power in a democracy.

If money can buy "getting your way" is real then how come Hillary didn't win??

Because the vote is the actual currency of political power...not the dollar.

We are talking about the possessors, not the producers.

They are one in the same.....if they weren't there wouldn't be huge famines, poverty and strife every time the proletariat somewhere goes and takes out the bourgeois. Without good management labor is a worthless clusterfuck.

And you do need to expropriate the possessors of wealth to have a democracy.

Why?

What does wealth redistribution have to do with democracy?

Like any decent and rational person and any patriotic American, I choose democracy over libertarianism.

Liberals are politically speaking decent and rational people.

You can also be democratic and have any number of societies as a result, including highly liberal society...even an extreme liberal (libertarian) one as well as a highly socialistic one. Democracy is a method by which a populous chooses it's politics....it doesn't have anything to say about what kind of politics it goes with.

Last but not least if you take a look at US history you'll find it was founded on what is still to this day radically liberal political ideals by a bunch of radical libertarians who started a war over a 3% tax on their tea and being asked to turn their guns in.

Patriotic americans support liberty, individual rights including the right of the individual to pursue their own happiness.

The exact opposite of the inherently oppressive and authoritarian ideals of socialism.

 

[Libsam]

After everyone is financially equal, do you think humans will create some other hierarchical system? Perhaps the new class system will be based on beauty, charm, talent?

How will you solve that?

Acid burn the beautiful people?
Attach brain wave scramblers to stop charming people?
Tie sandbags to the best ballerinas?

 

[Oblimo]

I'm sorry there is no evidence in there that in the US you get more votes the more money you have.

And that’s why a campaign’s finances don’t matter, folks!

You don't have to punish and oppress the producers of wealth to have a democracy.

Oh, and you’re a “rising tide lifts all boats” supply side trickle downer on top of your libertarian Mumbai jumbo too, eh? Figures.

Demand creates wealth, boyo.