• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shouldn't Classism be as Morally Abhorrent as Racism?

The Baron

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
798
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have been watching the news lately regarding the debate between conservatives and liberals with respect to extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Liberals are saying that the cuts do not need to be extended for the “rich”.

In fact, there has been a lot of talk about the “rich” for the last couple of years and none of it has been good. Classism (making the “rich” the target of animosity in this case) seems to be a favorite pastime of the Left is recent times which brings to my mind an interesting question…

…isn’t classism as morally abhorrent as racism or sexism?

And if it is shouldn't there be a cry of moral indignation from the public against it?
 

Troubadour

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
464
Reaction score
181
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't think the term necessarily applies. Arguing that people with greater means have a greater responsibility is simply a matter of practical judgment, not moral condemnation of a "class." Now, is it morally repugnant for conservatives to paint poor people as lazy and inferior? Absolutely, but not because it's "classism" (even though it plainly is) - but because people without money don't even have the resources to defend their rights much of the time, let alone their public image. As for classism against the rich, I'll gladly take that "burden" off the hands of anyone who finds it too troublesome. I'd love for my biggest problem to be that someone thinks I should pay more taxes.
 
Last edited:

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Classism is MUCH more socially acceptable in the US than racism. Look at the way people generally treat retail workers or the homeless.

That said, I dont see the OP's example as an example of classism. Arguing that one particular segment of society shouldn't be favored at the expense of others isn't classism, in fact, it's the very OPPOSITE.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have been watching the news lately regarding the debate between conservatives and liberals with respect to extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Liberals are saying that the cuts do not need to be extended for the “rich”.

In fact, there has been a lot of talk about the “rich” for the last couple of years and none of it has been good. Classism (making the “rich” the target of animosity in this case) seems to be a favorite pastime of the Left is recent times which brings to my mind an interesting question…

…isn’t classism as morally abhorrent as racism or sexism?

And if it is shouldn't there be a cry of moral indignation from the public against it?
Not everyone who wishes to see the Bush tax cuts rescinded has animosity towards the wealthy.

I don't want to see the Bush tax cuts extended. However, I have no animosity against the wealthy. It's just that if the wealthy want government services in this country, they need to help pay for it. It could be argued that the wealthy gain a greater benefit from having a stronger national defense, a better national infrastructure, a well-regulated health care program, and other government services. Therefore, they should pay for a greater amount of the burden to fund those things. Especially since they can do so while still maintaining a greater quality of life.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a greater number of brackets, especially on the higher end, so that someone who makes $1 million pays a lesser percentage than someone who makes $5 million, and they should pay a lesser percentage than someone who makes $1 billion. I see nothing wrong with having greater nuance in our laws, especially on the higher end.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not everyone who wishes to see the Bush tax cuts rescinded has animosity towards the wealthy.

I don't want to see the Bush tax cuts extended. However, I have no animosity against the wealthy. It's just that if the wealthy want government services in this country, they need to help pay for it. It could be argued that the wealthy gain a greater benefit from having a stronger national defense, a better national infrastructure, a well-regulated health care program, and other government services. Therefore, they should pay for a greater amount of the burden to fund those things. Especially since they can do so while still maintaining a greater quality of life.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a greater number of brackets, especially on the higher end, so that someone who makes $1 million pays a lesser percentage than someone who makes $5 million, and they should pay a lesser percentage than someone who makes $1 billion. I see nothing wrong with having greater nuance in our laws, especially on the higher end.
What argument would you make that the wealthy get more benefit from government services? That's absurd. Who's getting the lion's share of these government services?

20% of our budget goes to Social Security with an average benefit of about $1100 per recipient.
21% of our budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid and Children's health insurance programs.
14% of our budget goes to "Safety Net Programs" other than the two above.
20% of our budget goes to Defense and Security
06% goes toward our national debt
07% goes to benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans
03% to transportation infrastructure
03% to education
01% to international spending
04% to 'other'

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Fifty-five cents out of every dollar a wealthy American pays in taxes goes directly into the pockets of less affluent Americans. How much more should they have to give away?

On the local level, wealthy Americans more than pay their share for their 100 x 200 lot with a house on it by paying five or six times the property taxes I do for my same-sized lot because they have chosen to build a McMansion on it. People should thank their lucky STARS for the amount of tax dollars wealthy people pump into our system. Without them, people would be starving/dying in the streets.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I have been watching the news lately regarding the debate between conservatives and liberals with respect to extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Liberals are saying that the cuts do not need to be extended for the “rich”.

In fact, there has been a lot of talk about the “rich” for the last couple of years and none of it has been good. Classism (making the “rich” the target of animosity in this case) seems to be a favorite pastime of the Left is recent times which brings to my mind an interesting question…

…isn’t classism as morally abhorrent as racism or sexism?

And if it is shouldn't there be a cry of moral indignation from the public against it?
I'm not too worried, at least the class problem isn't as sharp as in Brazil or Venezuela. Thats a REAL problem there. The US is somewhat egalitarian.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The premise of the OP is ridiculous. It's like saying that Jim Crow segregation was racist because it favored whites. In fact, Jim Crow laws wrong racist because they disfavored blacks.

If there is classism in this country, it is against the poor.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Structuring a tax system for maximum practical results has nothing to do with liking or disliking the people who are taxed. I am against high corporate taxes not because I think corporations are benevolent angels, but because the end results of corporate taxation are not in the countries best interest. Similarly, I favor higher capital gains taxes not because I hate people who invest, but because they are comparatively low and we desperately need more revenue.
 

McCain2012

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
'Some people' are 'able to' change their class if they feel it is bad.
Well, Michael Jackson did go from Black to white, just sayin.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What argument would you make that the wealthy get more benefit from government services? That's absurd. Who's getting the lion's share of these government services?

20% of our budget goes to Social Security with an average benefit of about $1100 per recipient.
21% of our budget goes to Medicare, Medicaid and Children's health insurance programs.
14% of our budget goes to "Safety Net Programs" other than the two above.
20% of our budget goes to Defense and Security
06% goes toward our national debt
07% goes to benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans
03% to transportation infrastructure
03% to education
01% to international spending
04% to 'other'

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Fifty-five cents out of every dollar a wealthy American pays in taxes goes directly into the pockets of less affluent Americans. How much more should they have to give away?

On the local level, wealthy Americans more than pay their share for their 100 x 200 lot with a house on it by paying five or six times the property taxes I do for my same-sized lot because they have chosen to build a McMansion on it. People should thank their lucky STARS for the amount of tax dollars wealthy people pump into our system. Without them, people would be starving/dying in the streets.
1) The elderly use their Social Security dollars to pay for products of businesses that the wealthy invest in. So what's the number of money they pay into SS as compared to the profit they get on products purchased from companies they own stock in?

2) Medicare and Medicaid provide medical services to the poor, who are employees in the business the wealthy own stock in. So the money the wealthy pay into Medicare and Medicaid should be compared to the money the companies they invest in spend on training and retention of employees.

Children are future employees at businesses the wealthiest own stock in, and therefore maintaining their well-being is an investment on the future wellness of the businesses they own a share in.

3) The wealthiest own stocks in companies that own physical assets in the U.S. and overseas. A strong military to protect trade routes and areas of commerce helps protect the goods that they trade on a global level. Without the protection of the military, the goods of the companies they own shares in are more likely to get hit by pirates and other criminal organizations.

4) Calculate that 6% the wealthiest pays into to reduce the national debt and compare it to the percentage of the national debt that is used to pay companies the wealthiest own stocks in.

5) The wealthiest own stocks in companies who hire employees who rely on federal services, such as transportation services. So compare the costs between what they pay in and how much their employees spend on utilizing government services.

Veterans is the above and point #3.

6) Without national transportation infrastructure, the employees of businesses the wealthiest own stock in will have a more difficult time getting to and from work. Also, companies the wealthiest own stock in profit off of the commerce of the shipping of goods via national transportation infrastructure.

7) Children, teenagers, and adults being educated are future employees to the businesses the wealthiest own stock in. By contributing to the education of their employees, the wealthiest contribute to the well-being of their business investments.

8) International spending is done to help stabilize other nations, which generally engages in trade and commerce with businesses that the wealthiest have invested in.

I haven't said anything bad or insulting about the wealthiest. I'm just stating ways in which they receive a greater benefit from government programs. Will the fire department get to their houses faster because they pay far more to fund it? No. But by paying more money to fund the fire department, they get respond better to a greater number of people who work for businesses they invest in, and the better those employees do the better the businesses do, which means the better their investments do. Which means they receive a greater indirect benefit.
 

The Baron

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
798
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
“That said, I dont see the OP's example as an example of classism. Arguing that one particular segment of society shouldn't be favored at the expense of others isn't classism, in fact, it's the very OPPOSITE.” – Hoplite

Actually, classism is the bias against people is a certain class (in this case the “rich”) just as racism is the bias against people of a certain race or sexism a bias against people of a certain sex.

Any bias should be bad, shouldn’t it?

“It's just that if the wealthy want government services in this country, they need to help pay for it. It could be argued that the wealthy gain a greater benefit from having a stronger national defense, a better national infrastructure, a well-regulated health care program, and other government services.” – samsmart

How?

“Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a greater number of brackets, especially on the higher end, so that someone who makes $1 million pays a lesser percentage than someone who makes $5 million, and they should pay a lesser percentage than someone who makes $1 billion. I see nothing wrong with having greater nuance in our laws, especially on the higher end.” – samsmart

Why punish incentive and hard work?

“The premise of the OP is ridiculous. It's like saying that Jim Crow segregation was racist because it favored whites. In fact, Jim Crow laws wrong racist because they disfavored blacks.

If there is classism in this country, it is against the poor.”
– Guy Incognito

Except the poor isn’t punished by it’s government for being poor nor is there such vocal animosity among the public against the poor as there is against the “rich”.

See the difference?

“Similarly, I favor higher capital gains taxes not because I hate people who invest, but because they are comparatively low and we desperately need more revenue.” – rathi

Then reduce taxes for everyone. History shows repeatedly that a reduction in taxes increases tax revenue. Works every time it’s tried.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I already explained how.
 

The Baron

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
798
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Unless I've missed something (and I may have) you've stated that the "rich" recieved a greater benefit but not how their benefit was greater than that of the middle or lower classes.

So what am I missing?
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Except the poor isn’t punished by it’s government for being poor nor is there such vocal animosity among the public against the poor as there is against the “rich”.

See the difference?
You're mistaken. Taxes aren't punishment, they are paying what is owed to the government. The rich receive huge protections from the government, it is these protections that allow them to remain rich. They accept government largesse, they pay what they owe. No punishment involved. See the difference?
 

The Baron

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
798
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
“You're mistaken. Taxes aren't punishment…” – Guy Incognito

Many are. You may have heard of “sin taxes” that punish people for certain behaviors by charging them exorbitant taxes no things like tobacco, alcohol, etc.

“….they are paying what is owed to the government.” – Guy Incognito

Well this is a statement rife for (another) debate, but, yes in many instances this is the case (i.e. national defense). However, the government funds many things that the populace hardly “owes” (i.e. A.C.O.R.N. was an organization that received government funds as it was a “special interest” group. How tax payers “owed” the government because some politicians supported it is beyond me).

“The rich receive huge protections from the government…” – Guy Incognito

How does a rich person receive more benefits than a middle or lower class person?

“…it is these protections that allow them to remain rich.” – Guy Incognito

HOW?!

“They accept government largesse, they pay what they owe. No punishment involved. See the difference?” – Guy Incognito

No and right now I’m not sure you do either.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
[Many are. You may have heard of “sin taxes” that punish people for certain behaviors by charging them exorbitant taxes no things like tobacco, alcohol, etc.
You do realize that those things have significant health costs to society, right? And much of those tax dollars go towards paying those costs.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Many are. You may have heard of “sin taxes” that punish people for certain behaviors by charging them exorbitant taxes no things like tobacco, alcohol, etc.
Hardly exorbitant. Sin taxes are taxes to offset the negative financial impact they have in terms of healthcare.

How does a rich person receive more benefits than a middle or lower class person?
The wealthy gains a significant amount by paying more. We have varying social attitudes about the "super rich" however it would be laughable to say we treat or value someone who makes $20,000 a year the same as we do someone who makes $2,000,000 a year. Our society has a much kinder view of the wealthy and treats them with far gentler hands in almost every aspect of its operation. This can be ably demonstrated by the well-known maxim "Poor man's law, rich man's justice"; the fact that our legal system is slanted heavily in favor of the wealthy. Our political system is also a game for the wealthy; how many politicians do you know in the modern era who have to shop at the bargain bins? Our healthcare industry is also much more open to those with great amounts of money as they can afford comprehensive preventative care or new treatments that are often too expensive for your average 20k-er.

Our social mentality about the rich is also quite generous; despite some leanings in the opposite direction, the majority of our society tends to think highly of someone with money and those with less money will often go to great lengths to emulate the super wealthy. Our popular culture and entertainment glamorizes the lifestyle of obscene wealth and there are ways for even the poor to "try on" the high life if only for a while.
 

Animus

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
128
Reaction score
37
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The premise of the OP is ridiculous. It's like saying that Jim Crow segregation was racist because it favored whites. In fact, Jim Crow laws wrong racist because they disfavored blacks.

If there is classism in this country, it is against the poor.

This post sums it up best. Case closed.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,612
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have been watching the news lately regarding the debate between conservatives and liberals with respect to extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Liberals are saying that the cuts do not need to be extended for the “rich”.

In fact, there has been a lot of talk about the “rich” for the last couple of years and none of it has been good. Classism (making the “rich” the target of animosity in this case) seems to be a favorite pastime of the Left is recent times which brings to my mind an interesting question…

…isn’t classism as morally abhorrent as racism or sexism?


I can't see why it should be.

1. Class isn't biologically inherent, so I don't see why it should be a protected status.
2. As a matter of practicality and for the good of the nation, we have to get the money for government from somewhere.
3. Many people often ignore society's contribution to success and tend to only focus on what the individual did. It takes both.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
1)I haven't said anything bad or insulting about the wealthiest. I'm just stating ways in which they receive a greater benefit from government programs. Will the fire department get to their houses faster because they pay far more to fund it? No. But by paying more money to fund the fire department, they get respond better to a greater number of people who work for businesses they invest in, and the better those employees do the better the businesses do, which means the better their investments do. Which means they receive a greater indirect benefit.
:spin:

I'm dizzy now.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom