Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[Vast LWC]

Look moron, if we paid a flat tax the top 1% would have still paid 95%. This is because in 2007 their income increased at a faster rate than anyone else. So what! That's what your 95% talking point means you idiot. If you can't understand what you write then stop writing, you'll look much smarter...

Well I for one am all for a flat tax, say at about 25%, and I'm a liberal.

As long as it includes:

1. No loopholes, not even for charitable contributions.
2. The elimination of maximum income caps on Payroll Taxes, or their inclusion in the flat tax.
3. The elimination of caps on inheritance taxes.
4. Capital Gains Taxes will now be taxed at the same flat rate as the rest of taxes.
5. the elimination of Sales Tax.

I think you'll find that this will not benefit higher income brackets at all.

The elimination on the salary cap in payroll taxes will add an extra 6% to upper income taxes, and the inclusion of Capital Gains Taxes will raise the rate on profits from stocks, etc by 10%.

So yeah, let's have a flat tax. Please.

 

[Vast LWC]

In addition, during the middle of the last century, arguably the most productive period in the nation's history, the highest income tax bracket was set around 80%.

Rich people now have lower income tax rates than they have in a century.

 

[edthecynic]

The rich pay for the bulk of pretty much everything tax payer money is spent on. Their wealth provides jobs. And yet they remain one of the most derided groups of people in this country. It is truly baffling they are so hated, when damn near all of us would choose to be so, if all it took was snapping our fingers. But it takes more than that of course. More effort than what most are willing to put forth and we punish people for that by telling them you have to provide more than the person who wasn't wiling to put forth the same effort. That's the reality. But the left has to make excuses such as the rich don't work for their money (which is flat out statistically not true). Or they are evil greedy people who make money on others suffering. It's pathetic really.

Now hold on a minute there Slick! CON$ say the rich ARE the Liberal Left and it's the CON$ who demonize the rich "Limousine Liberals." Underachieving unproductive Red State leeches simply call themselves productive without actually doing the work.

So why should you CON$ care if the Libs tax themselves???

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
November 6, 2007
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

 

[Vast LWC]

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households.

Of course what you neglect to say is that Liberals live in higher cost-of-living areas, where their money doesn't go nearly as far.

In fact, since Red States pay less taxes, receive more federal funding, and have more representation, in general, than Blue States...

Conservatives are living on welfare money provided by Liberals!

Here is a link to a new thread describing this in detail.

 

[Bern80]

The rich pay for the bulk of pretty much everything tax payer money is spent on. Their wealth provides jobs. And yet they remain one of the most derided groups of people in this country. It is truly baffling they are so hated, when damn near all of us would choose to be so, if all it took was snapping our fingers. But it takes more than that of course. More effort than what most are willing to put forth and we punish people for that by telling them you have to provide more than the person who wasn't wiling to put forth the same effort. That's the reality. But the left has to make excuses such as the rich don't work for their money (which is flat out statistically not true). Or they are evil greedy people who make money on others suffering. It's pathetic really.

Now hold on a minute there Slick! CON$ say the rich ARE the Liberal Left and it's the CON$ who demonize the rich "Limousine Liberals." Underachieving unproductive Red State leeches simply call themselves productive without actually doing the work.

So why should you CON$ care if the Libs tax themselves???

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
November 6, 2007
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

What is it exactly you think this article is supposed to tell us? That the wealthy prefer representation by the left? That the last election was really a forum on who better represents the wealthy? I know what you like the article to say, but it's about as dishonest and transparently false argument there is.

And I'm not so shallow that I would simply rather see liberals taxed than conservatives. OUR GOVERMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH ******* MONEY TOO INEFFICIENTLY. It taxes it's citizens unfairly and disproportionately. It's ridiculous that we're even debating that fact. The only reason it's done is because our government is so bloated there isn't any other practical way to do it.

 

[editec]

parity: the quality or state of being equal or equivalent

so do you really believe that all incomes should be equivalent?

The burger flipper and Bill Gates should have equivalent salaries?

Do you really believe that Bill Gates contributes more to us than 100,000,000 Americans?

The market does.

since Microsoft provides hundred of thousands of jobs, more than any of those 100 million people do , yes.

ACtually that attitude is fair enough.

But then Mr, Gates et al will just have to accept the fact that since they are getting the lions share of the money, they'll have to pay the lions share of the taxes.

Fair? No of course not.

Just necessary since it stems from a system which isn't fair to begin with.

If you want the PEOPLE to pay a greater percentage of the taxes, they have to make a greater share of the money.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's time for another Ronny in the White House.

LOL, we're STILL paying interest on Ronnie's debt, how the hell is that gonna help anything?

 

[Bern80]

Do you really believe that Bill Gates contributes more to us than 100,000,000 Americans?

The market does.

since Microsoft provides hundred of thousands of jobs, more than any of those 100 million people do , yes.

ACtually that attitude is fair enough.

But then Mr, Gates et al will just have to accept the fact that since they are getting the lions share of the money, they'll have to pay the lions share of the taxes.

Fair? No of course not.

Just necessary since it stems from a system which isn't fair to begin with.

If you want the PEOPLE to pay a greater percentage of the taxes, they have to make a greater share of the money.

Pretty simple, really.

Or confront the actual elephant in the room and get government to spend less, and/or at the very least more efficiently. But why bother with that right? Even though it would make this debate about who should get taxed and how much a bit more irrelevant.

 

[editec]

It's time for another Ronny in the White House.

LOL, we're STILL paying interest on Ronnie's debt, how the hell is that gonna help anything?

He'll be White.

That would make a lot of people a lot more comfortable.

 

[edthecynic]

The rich pay for the bulk of pretty much everything tax payer money is spent on. Their wealth provides jobs. And yet they remain one of the most derided groups of people in this country. It is truly baffling they are so hated, when damn near all of us would choose to be so, if all it took was snapping our fingers. But it takes more than that of course. More effort than what most are willing to put forth and we punish people for that by telling them you have to provide more than the person who wasn't wiling to put forth the same effort. That's the reality. But the left has to make excuses such as the rich don't work for their money (which is flat out statistically not true). Or they are evil greedy people who make money on others suffering. It's pathetic really.

Now hold on a minute there Slick! CON$ say the rich ARE the Liberal Left and it's the CON$ who demonize the rich "Limousine Liberals." Underachieving unproductive Red State leeches simply call themselves productive without actually doing the work.

So why should you CON$ care if the Libs tax themselves???

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
November 6, 2007
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

What is it exactly you think this article is supposed to tell us? That the wealthy prefer representation by the left? That the last election was really a forum on who better represents the wealthy? I know what you like the article to say, but it's about as dishonest and transparently false argument there is.

And I'm not so shallow that I would simply rather see liberals taxed than conservatives. OUR GOVERMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH ******* MONEY TOO INEFFICIENTLY. It taxes it's citizens unfairly and disproportionately. It's ridiculous that we're even debating that fact. The only reason it's done is because our government is so bloated there isn't any other practical way to do it.

The dumb act again. CON$ are soooo predictable.

Those 2 CON$ervative sources establish the Left as the rich productive achievers that you said the Left demonize, when it has always been the envious Right Wing underachievers who demonize the more successful Left Wing "Limousine" Liberals.
The first article clearly says Libs ON THE AVERAGE earn more than CON$ and CON$ always say the people on welfare are mostly Libs, so in order to AVERAGE more income than CON$ the vast majority of the rich have to be Libs in order to AVERAGE more income. That's how AVERAGES work if the CON$ aren't LYING about Libs being on welfare, which of course, is always a big IF where CON$ are concerned.

Therefore the lazy CON$, stuck in their own mediocrity, are obviously envious of everyone above and below them, so they play the Perpetual Victim card pretending to be the the people who are "punished" for being successful without having to put out the effort it takes to be successful.
Get it???

 

[Bern80]

Now hold on a minute there Slick! CON$ say the rich ARE the Liberal Left and it's the CON$ who demonize the rich "Limousine Liberals." Underachieving unproductive Red State leeches simply call themselves productive without actually doing the work.

So why should you CON$ care if the Libs tax themselves???

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
November 6, 2007
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
by Michael Franc

More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.

What is it exactly you think this article is supposed to tell us? That the wealthy prefer representation by the left? That the last election was really a forum on who better represents the wealthy? I know what you like the article to say, but it's about as dishonest and transparently false argument there is.

And I'm not so shallow that I would simply rather see liberals taxed than conservatives. OUR GOVERMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH ******* MONEY TOO INEFFICIENTLY. It taxes it's citizens unfairly and disproportionately. It's ridiculous that we're even debating that fact. The only reason it's done is because our government is so bloated there isn't any other practical way to do it.

The dumb act again. CON$ are soooo predictable.

Those 2 CON$ervative sources establish the Left as the rich productive achievers that you said the Left demonize, when it has always been the envious Right Wing underachievers who demonize the more successful Left Wing "Limousine" Liberals.
The first article clearly says Libs ON THE AVERAGE earn more than CON$ and CON$ always say the people on welfare are mostly Libs, so in order to AVERAGE more income than CON$ the vast majority of the rich have to be Libs in order to AVERAGE more income. That's how AVERAGES work if the CON$ aren't LYING about Libs being on welfare, which of course, is always a big IF where CON$ are concerned.

Therefore the lazy CON$, stuck in their own mediocrity, are obviously envious of everyone above and below them, so they play the Perpetual Victim card pretending to be the the people who are "punished" for being successful without having to put out the effort it takes to be successful.
Get it???

I 'get' that you are one of the poorer excuses for a spin doctor I have come across. I assume you are referring to the following:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative

You have attempted to spin this and the second article to mean that of the wealthy more of them are liberal rather than conservative. In NO way can that conclusion be reached in either of your links. The above sentence is an example of where having a modicum of reading comprehension would help. It says that liberals AVERAGE higher incomes than conservatives. That is a bit different then there being MORE wealthy liberals than conservatives. The sentence is measure QUANTITY of MONEY. Which with a wave of your dishonest magical wand tried feebly to turn into a measure of the QUANTITY of PEOPLE that are wealthy. Do YOU 'get it'?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you really believe that Bill Gates contributes more to us than 100,000,000 Americans?

The market does.

since Microsoft provides hundred of thousands of jobs, more than any of those 100 million people do , yes.

ACtually that attitude is fair enough.

But then Mr, Gates et al will just have to accept the fact that since they are getting the lions share of the money, they'll have to pay the lions share of the taxes.

Fair? No of course not.

Just necessary since it stems from a system which isn't fair to begin with.

If you want the PEOPLE to pay a greater percentage of the taxes, they have to make a greater share of the money.

Pretty simple, really.

no matter what tax system you use, a "progressive" or flat those who make more always pay more so i don't understand why you think some people don't pay enough

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes that sounds like the lion's share to me.

 

[editec]

since Microsoft provides hundred of thousands of jobs, more than any of those 100 million people do , yes.

ACtually that attitude is fair enough.

But then Mr, Gates et al will just have to accept the fact that since they are getting the lions share of the money, they'll have to pay the lions share of the taxes.

Fair? No of course not.

Just necessary since it stems from a system which isn't fair to begin with.

If you want the PEOPLE to pay a greater percentage of the taxes, they have to make a greater share of the money.

Pretty simple, really.

no matter what tax system you use, a "progressive" or flat those who make more always pay more so i don't understand why you think some people don't pay enough

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes that sounds like the lion's share to me.

Yes, it sounds like they pay the lion's share of the Federal taxes to me, too.

Tell me, Skull, do you think that the top 10% are better off or worse off than they were twenty years ago? In other words, has that class's net worth gone up, or down?

Now how about the bottom 90%? How do their net worth's look in the last twenty years or so?

Better off or worse off?

 

[edthecynic]

What is it exactly you think this article is supposed to tell us? That the wealthy prefer representation by the left? That the last election was really a forum on who better represents the wealthy? I know what you like the article to say, but it's about as dishonest and transparently false argument there is.

And I'm not so shallow that I would simply rather see liberals taxed than conservatives. OUR GOVERMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH ******* MONEY TOO INEFFICIENTLY. It taxes it's citizens unfairly and disproportionately. It's ridiculous that we're even debating that fact. The only reason it's done is because our government is so bloated there isn't any other practical way to do it.

The dumb act again. CON$ are soooo predictable.

Those 2 CON$ervative sources establish the Left as the rich productive achievers that you said the Left demonize, when it has always been the envious Right Wing underachievers who demonize the more successful Left Wing "Limousine" Liberals.
The first article clearly says Libs ON THE AVERAGE earn more than CON$ and CON$ always say the people on welfare are mostly Libs, so in order to AVERAGE more income than CON$ the vast majority of the rich have to be Libs in order to AVERAGE more income. That's how AVERAGES work if the CON$ aren't LYING about Libs being on welfare, which of course, is always a big IF where CON$ are concerned.

Therefore the lazy CON$, stuck in their own mediocrity, are obviously envious of everyone above and below them, so they play the Perpetual Victim card pretending to be the the people who are "punished" for being successful without having to put out the effort it takes to be successful.
Get it???

I 'get' that you are one of the poorer excuses for a spin doctor I have come across. I assume you are referring to the following:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative

You have attempted to spin this and the second article to mean that of the wealthy more of them are liberal rather than conservative. In NO way can that conclusion be reached in either of your links. The above sentence is an example of where having a modicum of reading comprehension would help. It says that liberals AVERAGE higher incomes than conservatives. That is a bit different then there being MORE wealthy liberals than conservatives. The sentence is measure QUANTITY of MONEY. Which with a wave of your dishonest magical wand tried feebly to turn into a measure of the QUANTITY of PEOPLE that are wealthy. Do YOU 'get it'?

The dumb act again.
Somehow you missed the part where CON$ claim the welfare roles are filled with Libs. If that habitual CON$ervative claim is true then the rich have to be mostly libs on order for Libs to AVERAGE 6% more income than CON$.
Get it now????

 

[Skull Pilot]

ACtually that attitude is fair enough.

But then Mr, Gates et al will just have to accept the fact that since they are getting the lions share of the money, they'll have to pay the lions share of the taxes.

Fair? No of course not.

Just necessary since it stems from a system which isn't fair to begin with.

If you want the PEOPLE to pay a greater percentage of the taxes, they have to make a greater share of the money.

Pretty simple, really.

no matter what tax system you use, a "progressive" or flat those who make more always pay more so i don't understand why you think some people don't pay enough

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes that sounds like the lion's share to me.

Yes, it sounds like they pay the lion's share of the Federal taxes to me, too.

Tell me, Skull, do you think that the top 10% are better off or worse off than they were twenty years ago? In other words, has that class's net worth gone up, or down?

Now how about the bottom 90%? How do their net worth's look in the last twenty years or so?

Better off or worse off?

what net worth?

herein lies the problem. We have had a couple of generations of people who have not saved, who have lived way beyond their means and are now reaping the whirlwind.

but it's someone else's fault, namely "the rich" that evil amorphous alliance of those with an AGI over 200K.

So now that we are getting paid back in spades for what basically amounts to our own irresponsible behavior, we want someone else to pay for it.

 

[editec]

no matter what tax system you use, a "progressive" or flat those who make more always pay more so i don't understand why you think some people don't pay enough

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of all income taxes that sounds like the lion's share to me.

Yes, it sounds like they pay the lion's share of the Federal taxes to me, too.

Tell me, Skull, do you think that the top 10% are better off or worse off than they were twenty years ago? In other words, has that class's net worth gone up, or down?

Now how about the bottom 90%? How do their net worth's look in the last twenty years or so?

Better off or worse off?

what net worth?


herein lies the problem. We have had a couple of generations of people who have not saved, who have lived way beyond their means and are now reaping the whirlwind.

Do you honestly think that is the root source of the problem, Skull? That 90% of the population didn't save enough?

but it's someone else's fault, namely "the rich" that evil amorphous alliance of those with an AGI over 200K.

Is that how you see it?

So now that we are getting paid back in spades for what basically amounts to our own irresponsible behavior, we want someone else to pay for it.

Are the lower 90% to blame for the 50% decrease in taxes on the superwealthy, too?

Say, that policy was a rather foolish one for them to vote for, wasn't it?

Now, they've got to make up the taxes that, formerly, the superwealthy paid.

Yeah that 90% are all definitely stupid...on that you and I completely agree.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, it sounds like they pay the lion's share of the Federal taxes to me, too.

Tell me, Skull, do you think that the top 10% are better off or worse off than they were twenty years ago? In other words, has that class's net worth gone up, or down?

Now how about the bottom 90%? How do their net worth's look in the last twenty years or so?

Better off or worse off?

what net worth?



Do you honestly think that is the root source of the problem, Skull? That 90% of the population didn't save enough?



Is that how you see it?

So now that we are getting paid back in spades for what basically amounts to our own irresponsible behavior, we want someone else to pay for it.

Are they to blame for the 50% decrease in taxes on the superwealthy, too?

Say, that policy was a rather foolish one for them to vote for wasn't it?

Now they've got to make up the taxes that, formerly, the superwealthy paid.

Yeah that 90% are all definitely stupid...on that you and I completely agree.

yes god forbid the government spend less

We may "agree" but we never will concur.

IMO the government is too big and too expensive and that if people kept more of their own money we would all be better off.

Sure some people would make poor choices, but that is their right is it not?

And some people would be truly needy and they should be helped but the way we are going now we actually call people who make over 70K a year and choose not to purchase health insurance "uninsured"

And it's not 90% but rather the middle 60% to which I was referring

 

[editec]

what net worth?



Do you honestly think that is the root source of the problem, Skull? That 90% of the population didn't save enough?



Is that how you see it?



Are they to blame for the 50% decrease in taxes on the superwealthy, too?

Say, that policy was a rather foolish one for them to vote for wasn't it?

Now they've got to make up the taxes that, formerly, the superwealthy paid.

Yeah that 90% are all definitely stupid...on that you and I completely agree.

yes god forbid the government spend less

I thought you and I were on the same page when it comes to government spending. Don't we both agree that the government spends too much money?

We may "agree" but we never will concur.

Okay...whatever that means

IMO the government is too big and too expensive and that if people kept more of their own money we would all be better off.

Agreed.

Sure some people would make poor choices, but that is their right is it not?

Sure

And some people would be truly needy and they should be helped but the way we are going now we actually call people who make over 70K a year and choose not to purchase health insurance "uninsured"

Do we?

And it's not 90% but rather the middle 60% to which I was referring

Now I'm not sure what you're talking about.

the middle 60% are the people who have been most screwed by this system.

In fact it is the most productive workers who are, IMO, getting screwed the worst as direct result of the enormus tax breaks the SUPER WEALTHY (that's really about 1/10th of 1%) of the population.

Some smart guy making a mere quarter million a year isn't the problem, in my opinion.

They are, in fact, the worst VICTIMS of this unfair system of taxation which rewards the superwealthy.

 

[Bern80]

The dumb act again. CON$ are soooo predictable.

Those 2 CON$ervative sources establish the Left as the rich productive achievers that you said the Left demonize, when it has always been the envious Right Wing underachievers who demonize the more successful Left Wing "Limousine" Liberals.
The first article clearly says Libs ON THE AVERAGE earn more than CON$ and CON$ always say the people on welfare are mostly Libs, so in order to AVERAGE more income than CON$ the vast majority of the rich have to be Libs in order to AVERAGE more income. That's how AVERAGES work if the CON$ aren't LYING about Libs being on welfare, which of course, is always a big IF where CON$ are concerned.

Therefore the lazy CON$, stuck in their own mediocrity, are obviously envious of everyone above and below them, so they play the Perpetual Victim card pretending to be the the people who are "punished" for being successful without having to put out the effort it takes to be successful.
Get it???

I 'get' that you are one of the poorer excuses for a spin doctor I have come across. I assume you are referring to the following:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative

You have attempted to spin this and the second article to mean that of the wealthy more of them are liberal rather than conservative. In NO way can that conclusion be reached in either of your links. The above sentence is an example of where having a modicum of reading comprehension would help. It says that liberals AVERAGE higher incomes than conservatives. That is a bit different then there being MORE wealthy liberals than conservatives. The sentence is measure QUANTITY of MONEY. Which with a wave of your dishonest magical wand tried feebly to turn into a measure of the QUANTITY of PEOPLE that are wealthy. Do YOU 'get it'?

The dumb act again.
Somehow you missed the part where CON$ claim the welfare roles are filled with Libs. If that habitual CON$ervative claim is true then the rich have to be mostly libs on order for Libs to AVERAGE 6% more income than CON$.
Get it now????

Wrong again. Did we fail math perhaps? The first part of your statement is completely unsubstantiated. Though feel free to provide the evidence if you have it. You still don't get it. Both of your articles talk about how much MONEY people have, not how many of them there are. You can have 100 conservatives making making six figures and their AVERAGE will be 6 figures. And you can have 10 liberals making seven figures and their average will be 7 figures. Now in that scenario are there more wealthy conservatives or liberals? I think you can figure that part out, so explain to me how either of your articles contradicts the above.

 

[Newby]

The Statist is taught to divide people into class's......and the ignorant fall for it.

The division of the classes is the inevitable outcome of the systems we have in place.

Recognizing that laws and policies effect those classes differently is nothing more than understanding reality, OZZ.

When, for example, people start complaining that the rich pay a huge share of the taxes overall, does that make them ignorant, or merely well informed?

Class differences exist.

Denying that they exist is silly.

So, you advocate the use of them for the gain of political power then as well?