Is this Class Warfare?

Is this Class Warfare?
There is no such thing as ‘class warfare’; it’s a contrivance of the right in an effort to justify their support of the wealthy in the context of conservative dogma: the fallacy that the wealthy are ‘job creators’ and are entitled to tax breaks and the like accordingly. Taking advantage of tax breaks to maximize profits, they create no jobs and only enrich shareholders.

Class warfare is a contrivance of the right? I thought it was a leftist doctrine that was first articulated by Marx. Then again, I actually read, so what do I know?
 
Raising the taxes on one select class? That's the definition, right? According to you 'class warfare' whiners...

Wis. budget panel cuts tax credit for poor

May 31, 2011

By TODD RICHMOND


Republicans on the Legislature's finance committee tucked a host of tax changes into the state budget Tuesday, reducing credits for the working poor and expanding tax breaks on business investments.

The committee adopted a massive motion covering a wide swath of tax revisions on a 12-4 party line vote. Chief among them was a provision cutting back on the earned income tax credit.


Wis. budget panel cuts tax credit for poor - BusinessWeek

Most all states have regressive tax systems where the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage of taxes, while the highest income earners pay the least. And they want to take credits away from the poor. It's laughable. Of course, most people have no clue that states have such regressive tax systems as they just get caught up in all the propaganda that the rich pay all the taxes.

Bullshit.
 
Is this Class Warfare?

There is no such thing as ‘class warfare’; it’s a contrivance of the right in an effort to justify their support of the wealthy in the context of conservative dogma: the fallacy that the wealthy are ‘job creators’ and are entitled to tax breaks and the like accordingly. Taking advantage of tax breaks to maximize profits, they create no jobs and only enrich shareholders.

:lol:


nope, no kulaks, no proletariat, no bourgeoisie, no plebes, no optimates......no upper calls so no lower class, whats said about/between the relationships between those all for 200 years? .....just diatribe ( as yo just engaged in yourself) without a name....it aint Yaahweh or Lord Voldemort, you can say it you know.......but thx for clearing that up for me.
 
AUDITOR::

Most all states have regressive tax systems where the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage of taxes, while the highest income earners pay the least. And they want to take credits away from the poor. It's laughable. Of course, most people have no clue that states have such regressive tax systems as they just get caught up in all the propaganda that the rich pay all the taxes.


We'll ignore the obvious errors in that statement and focus on "Regressive"

Ya Know. ALL of life is regressive if you're poor. FOOD is regressive. Having KIDS is regressive. Bus Fare is regressive. Weed costs are regressive. Because the poor pay a larger percentage of their income for these things than other folk.

Know what's NOT regressive you mental midgets? FICA taxes. You know those taxes that make your claim that the poor pay more in taxes valid. Well you're wrong --- FICA taxes are NOT regressive. They are premiums for a social program that NONE of us agreed to but go to provide PROGRESSIVE benefits to ALL workers (at least until the lefties butcher it into unrecognizable chunks of redistribution). Take those out of your claim that poor are overtaxed and your whole premise goes as blank as your minds..

Know what else is NOT regressive? EITCredits.. That's what's NOT regressive. In fact, the subject of this thread is about decreases in a credit that in ANY AMOUNT is not regressive.

Income TAX? Not regressive either..

Obviously -- if you're TRULY WORRIED about the regressive penalties of being poor -- taxes are NOT the first place to focus on lefties...
 
Last edited:
FYI for those of you unsure or denying what the term "class" means in sociological terms

Class and social stratification

<H3>What is social stratification?


Stratification is a hierarchy of positions with regard to economic production which influences the social rewards to those in the positions.

What is class?


Class is large set of people regarded by themselves or others as sharing similar status with regard to wealth, power and prestige.

What are the major forms of stratification?


Primitive communalism characterized by a high degree of sharing and minimal social inequality. Slavery involving great social inequality and the ownership of some persons by others. Caste in which an individual is permanently assigned to a status based on his or her parents' status. Estate in which peasants are required by law to work land owned by the noble class in exchange for food and protection from outside attacks.

How do stratification systems differ?


Openness is the opportunity for individuals to change their status. Caste stratification systems are closed whereas class stratification systems are more open. The degree of equality is the degree to which the social structure approaches an equal distribution of resources. Hunting and gathering societies are typically very equal with inequality developing in later stages of agriculture and industrialization.

What are Weber's three dimensions of stratification?


Class or a set of people with similar amounts of income and wealth. Party or a set of people with similar amounts of power. Status group or a set of people with similar social prestige or positive regard from members of a society.

What are the five basic viewpoints on why stratification exists?


Natural inevitability which suggests that inequality exists because of natural differences in people's abilities and is a just system. Structural -functionalist which states that stratification is useful to society because it enhances stability and induces members of the society to work hard. Conflict which suggests that stratification occurs through conflict between different classes, with the upper classes using superior power to take a larger share of the social resources. Evolutionary which states that people will share enough resources to ensure the survival of the group until a surplus exists at which time power determines how the surplus is distributed. Symbolic Interactionist which calls attention to the importance of symbolic displays of wealth and power that influence one's definition of self and the importance of ideas in defining social situations.

In what regard is some stratification inevitable?

Inequality may emanate from natural differences in people's abilities. What are the functionalist and conflict theories as to the reasons for stratification? Structural-functionalists believe that societies tend to be stable and are held together through consensus.Stratifiction provides an important function to society by aiding this process because it lessens conflict and provides structure. Conflict theorists believe that society tends toward conflict and change and that stratification system coerce the lower classes in order to benefit the upper classes.
</H3>
 
Last edited:
Is this Class Warfare?

There is no such thing as ‘class warfare’; it’s a contrivance of the right in an effort to justify their support of the wealthy in the context of conservative dogma: the fallacy that the wealthy are ‘job creators’ and are entitled to tax breaks and the like accordingly. Taking advantage of tax breaks to maximize profits, they create no jobs and only enrich shareholders.

oh brother...so which POOR person do you work for...??:eusa_whistle:
 
NYCarb::

From your article you cited -- the facts suggest it's not the same class warfare..

Republican Gov. Scott Walker's executive budget calls for increasing the state credit for one-child families from 4 percent to 5 percent, but would cut the credit for two-child families from 14 percent to 8 percent and for families with three or more children from 43 percent to 40 percent.

Republicans who control the finance committee left the governor's increase for one-child families unchanged. They increased the two-child family credit from Walker's 8 percent to 11 percent, but went beyond the governor's cut to families with three or more children, decreasing their share to 39 percent.

Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, the committee's co-chair, told reporters before the panel convened that Wisconsin's credits are among the most generous in the nation. According to state fiscal analysts, no other states offer a credit of more than 40 percent or offer more than one reimbursement percentage based on the number of children in a family.

See this is NOT a tax -- it's simple redistribution. By definition -- NONE of those families affected will ever PAY income tax. EITC is a BENEFIT.

So you have TAKING confused with GIVING.. Get it? TAKING is a punishment. GIVING is a reward. Cutting a reward does not equal increasing a TAKING...

Furthermore -- it leaves the CheeseHeads with a much more GENEROUS giving then they would get elsewhere -- but it does have that nasty eugenics component of encouraging SMALLER poor families.

Well that's the all-powerful compassion of the State for ya!

Nobody in Wisconsin who is eligible for the EITC pays Wisconsin income taxes?

Prove that.
 
Is this Class Warfare?

There is no such thing as ‘class warfare’; it’s a contrivance of the right in an effort to justify their support of the wealthy in the context of conservative dogma: the fallacy that the wealthy are ‘job creators’ and are entitled to tax breaks and the like accordingly. Taking advantage of tax breaks to maximize profits, they create no jobs and only enrich shareholders.

oh brother...so which POOR person do you work for...??:eusa_whistle:

The 'job creators' in our economy are the consumers, and the overwhelming majority of them are not rich.
 
Raising the taxes on one select class? That's the definition, right? According to you 'class warfare' whiners...

Wis. budget panel cuts tax credit for poor

May 31, 2011

By TODD RICHMOND


Republicans on the Legislature's finance committee tucked a host of tax changes into the state budget Tuesday, reducing credits for the working poor and expanding tax breaks on business investments.

The committee adopted a massive motion covering a wide swath of tax revisions on a 12-4 party line vote. Chief among them was a provision cutting back on the earned income tax credit.


Wis. budget panel cuts tax credit for poor - BusinessWeek

but they hate the poor and whorship the rich....welll except the rich who see that taxes on the rich need to be raised to help this nation..those guys are...........well ........they are bad.
 
obama016.jpg
 
AUDITOR::

Most all states have regressive tax systems where the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage of taxes, while the highest income earners pay the least. And they want to take credits away from the poor. It's laughable. Of course, most people have no clue that states have such regressive tax systems as they just get caught up in all the propaganda that the rich pay all the taxes.


We'll ignore the obvious errors in that statement and focus on "Regressive"

Ya Know. ALL of life is regressive if you're poor. FOOD is regressive. Having KIDS is regressive. Bus Fare is regressive. Weed costs are regressive. Because the poor pay a larger percentage of their income for these things than other folk.

Know what's NOT regressive you mental midgets? FICA taxes. You know those taxes that make your claim that the poor pay more in taxes valid. Well you're wrong --- FICA taxes are NOT regressive. They are premiums for a social program that NONE of us agreed to but go to provide PROGRESSIVE benefits to ALL workers (at least until the lefties butcher it into unrecognizable chunks of redistribution). Take those out of your claim that poor are overtaxed and your whole premise goes as blank as your minds..

Know what else is NOT regressive? EITCredits.. That's what's NOT regressive. In fact, the subject of this thread is about decreases in a credit that in ANY AMOUNT is not regressive.

Income TAX? Not regressive either..

Obviously -- if you're TRULY WORRIED about the regressive penalties of being poor -- taxes are NOT the first place to focus on lefties...


Income taxes are unfair to the wealthy. (Hense all the bullshit deductions purchased from congress by those who can afford such lobbying)

Consumption taxes are unfair to the poor.

Fair taxes would be composed of a blend, like Herman Cains 9-9-9 plan.
 
Toro::
If raising taxes on the rich is "class warfare," why isn't raising taxes on the poor and middle class?

I can't tell you what amount anyone should contribute. Except that if we're gonna have an income tax, EVERYONE should contribute. So when the Prez talks about EVERYBODY paying their fair share -- it should mean EVERYBODY. Even if it's the cost of a couple burgers a month.

In terms of taxation -- class warfare is all about the shape of the tax brackets. You cannot have majority of taxpayers (and voters) who pay less than 10% of the income tax burden demanding HIGHER and HIGHER contributions from the minority at the top brackets.

And as far as the OP goes. We shouldn't go wild redistributing INCOME tax credits to the lower brackets to pay for their premiums to Soc Sec and Medicare. Those programs are FORCED on all us to provide what are supposed to be fairly equal benefits later in life. (In reality the BENEFIT/PREMIUM ratio part is HUGELY progressive anyway) Presumably this coercion is done because most of us are too stupid to direct our own savings. You don't fix stupid by taking away responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
oh brother...so which POOR person do you work for...??:eusa_whistle:

I can't speak for Stephanie, but I myself work for every poor person (or middle-class or working-class person) who buys the products and services that my clients advertise, without which I wouldn't have any work.
 
NYCarb::

From your article you cited -- the facts suggest it's not the same class warfare..

Republican Gov. Scott Walker's executive budget calls for increasing the state credit for one-child families from 4 percent to 5 percent, but would cut the credit for two-child families from 14 percent to 8 percent and for families with three or more children from 43 percent to 40 percent.

Republicans who control the finance committee left the governor's increase for one-child families unchanged. They increased the two-child family credit from Walker's 8 percent to 11 percent, but went beyond the governor's cut to families with three or more children, decreasing their share to 39 percent.

Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, the committee's co-chair, told reporters before the panel convened that Wisconsin's credits are among the most generous in the nation. According to state fiscal analysts, no other states offer a credit of more than 40 percent or offer more than one reimbursement percentage based on the number of children in a family.

See this is NOT a tax -- it's simple redistribution. By definition -- NONE of those families affected will ever PAY income tax. EITC is a BENEFIT.

So you have TAKING confused with GIVING.. Get it? TAKING is a punishment. GIVING is a reward. Cutting a reward does not equal increasing a TAKING...

Furthermore -- it leaves the CheeseHeads with a much more GENEROUS giving then they would get elsewhere -- but it does have that nasty eugenics component of encouraging SMALLER poor families.

Well that's the all-powerful compassion of the State for ya!

Nobody in Wisconsin who is eligible for the EITC pays Wisconsin income taxes?

Prove that.

I'm not a CheeseHead.. But what I do know is that Wisc relies on FED qualifications for EITC. Under the current law, the vast majority of EITC reciepients would NEVER be liable for a penny of Income Tax. The EITC tax table itself is complicated by "phase-in phase-out" compensations. But the "plateau" levels for all filing statuses with children are well under the levels for Income Tax Liability.. In addition, Wisc. is one of only 12 states that actually treat the STATE EITC as a refund. Meaning that for STATE income tax, those credits end up as CASH payments to the filers.
 
There is no such thing as &#8216;class warfare&#8217;; it&#8217;s a contrivance of the right in an effort to justify their support of the wealthy in the context of conservative dogma: the fallacy that the wealthy are &#8216;job creators&#8217; and are entitled to tax breaks and the like accordingly. Taking advantage of tax breaks to maximize profits, they create no jobs and only enrich shareholders.

oh brother...so which POOR person do you work for...??:eusa_whistle:

The 'job creators' in our economy are the consumers, and the overwhelming majority of them are not rich.

And the bottom 50% of those consumers don't pay taxes but are given subsidies(paid for by the top 50% consumers) in the name of child credit(s) and some with instate college tuition.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top