- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,967
- Reaction score
- 1,530
- Location
- Somewhere in Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
....Arguing that one particular segment of society shouldn't be favored at the expense of others isn't classism...
Individuals not in favor of extending tax cuts for high earning individuals as indicated by the OPWho's arguing this point?
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Not everyone who wishes to see the Bush tax cuts rescinded has animosity towards the wealthy.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.
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?
Of course not, a person can change their class if they feel it is bad.
'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.
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.
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?
[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.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.
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.How does a rich person receive more benefits than a middle or lower class person?
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.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?