Please define class warfare

[ednksu]

In addition, Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps and increasing their Medicare premiums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/social-security-payroll-tax-hike-drives-wedge-in-washington.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=millionaires%20food%20stamps&st=cse

Sounds like they have come to an agreement on the extension of the payroll tax cut, but the dems want an increased income tax on small business owners. They got what they and the president want, but are unwilling to compromise on the job killing tax increase. Typical.

how do you go from taxing millionaires and billionaires  to increasing income taxes on small business owners?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Well, I guess to answer your original question, I would define "class warfare" as pitting one "class" of people (typically defined by income) against another for political advantage.

For example, Democrats employ class warfare by vilifying and ginning up resentment against the "the rich" in order to motivate "the poor" to vote for Democrats. To paraphrase a Democratic campaign: "Vote for me and I will punish the fat cats, take their money, and give it you."

Republicans also engage in class warfare by playing on the resentment that many Americans feel towards paying a certain percentage of their hard-earned income to subsidize the lifestyles of the lazy, stupid, and drug-addled masses.

So, while both may be examples of "class warfare," they are not equivalent in foundation. One is based in socialism. The other is based in capitalism.

[ednksu]

Well, I guess to answer your original question, I would define "class warfare" as pitting one "class" of people (typically defined by income) against another for political advantage.

For example, Democrats employ class warfare by vilifying and ginning up resentment against the "the rich" in order to motivate "the poor" to vote for Democrats. To paraphrase a Democratic campaign: "Vote for me and I will punish the fat cats, take their money, and give it you."

Republicans also engage in class warfare by playing on the resentment that many Americans feel towards paying a certain percentage of their hard-earned income to subsidize the lifestyles of the lazy, stupid, and drug-addled masses.

So, while both may be examples of "class warfare," they are not equivalent in foundation. One is based in socialism. The other is based in capitalism.

I was with you 100% until you said the other was based on capitalism without providing any sort of qualification. 

The American system is not capitalism.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Well, I guess to answer your original question, I would define "class warfare" as pitting one "class" of people (typically defined by income) against another for political advantage.

For example, Democrats employ class warfare by vilifying and ginning up resentment against the "the rich" in order to motivate "the poor" to vote for Democrats. To paraphrase a Democratic campaign: "Vote for me and I will punish the fat cats, take their money, and give it you."

Republicans also engage in class warfare by playing on the resentment that many Americans feel towards paying a certain percentage of their hard-earned income to subsidize the lifestyles of the lazy, stupid, and drug-addled masses.

So, while both may be examples of "class warfare," they are not equivalent in foundation. One is based in socialism. The other is based in capitalism.

I was with you 100% until you said the other was based on capitalism without providing any sort of qualification. 

The American system is not capitalism.

When I use terms like socialism and capitalism, I am generalizing for convenience. I think it is fair to say that conservatism is much more in line with capitalism, and modern-day liberalism is much more in line with socialism. I completely agree that concepts such as "too big to fail" are the antithesis of capitalism.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

In addition, Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps and increasing their Medicare premiums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/social-security-payroll-tax-hike-drives-wedge-in-washington.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=millionaires%20food%20stamps&st=cse

Sounds like they have come to an agreement on the extension of the payroll tax cut, but the dems want an increased income tax on small business owners. They got what they and the president want, but are unwilling to compromise on the job killing tax increase. Typical.

how do you go from taxing millionaires and billionaires  to increasing income taxes on small business owners?

a million dollar business is a small business, and those types of businesses employ the most people. Many of those business owners include those earnings on their personal income tax due to the increased burden of filing as a corp.

[06wildcat]

In addition, Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps and increasing their Medicare premiums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/social-security-payroll-tax-hike-drives-wedge-in-washington.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=millionaires%20food%20stamps&st=cse

Sounds like they have come to an agreement on the extension of the payroll tax cut, but the dems want an increased income tax on small business owners. They got what they and the president want, but are unwilling to compromise on the job killing tax increase. Typical.

how do you go from taxing millionaires and billionaires  to increasing income taxes on small business owners?

a million dollar business is a small business, and those types of businesses employ the most people. Many of those business owners include those earnings on their personal income tax due to the increased burden of filing as a corp.

Yes, business owners count those profits as personal income because they're organized as S corps. They receive absolutely no benefit from the government from being chartered as an S corp. That's why most people when starting a business just go the DBA route. So much simpler and there's no huge burden of having the accountant fill out a couple extra forms.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

In addition, Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps and increasing their Medicare premiums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/social-security-payroll-tax-hike-drives-wedge-in-washington.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=millionaires%20food%20stamps&st=cse

Sounds like they have come to an agreement on the extension of the payroll tax cut, but the dems want an increased income tax on small business owners. They got what they and the president want, but are unwilling to compromise on the job killing tax increase. Typical.

how do you go from taxing millionaires and billionaires  to increasing income taxes on small business owners?

a million dollar business is a small business, and those types of businesses employ the most people. Many of those business owners include those earnings on their personal income tax due to the increased burden of filing as a corp.

Yes, business owners count those profits as personal income because they're organized as S corps. They receive absolutely no benefit from the government from being chartered as an S corp. That's why most people when starting a business just go the DBA route. So much simpler and there's no huge burden of having the accountant fill out a couple extra forms.

None of this is accurate.  KU business school?

S-Corps are corps, legally the same thing.  You don't charter as an S-Corp, you elect S-Corp tax status.   S-Corps receive an enormous benefit from the Government (State of incorporation) because they have limited liability but aren't taxed as a separate entity (aka "pass-thru" tax treatment). 

Owners of S-Corp stock count profits as personal income, because the profits are personal income, there is no corporate taxable entity.

You are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if go dba rather than organize as an LLC, it costs like $150. 

Visit the Kansas Secy of State website for forms, filing info, and a more!

[06wildcat]

In addition, Senate Republican leaders would go after “millionaires and billionaires,” not by raising their taxes but by making them ineligible for unemployment compensation and food stamps and increasing their Medicare premiums.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/politics/social-security-payroll-tax-hike-drives-wedge-in-washington.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=millionaires%20food%20stamps&st=cse

Sounds like they have come to an agreement on the extension of the payroll tax cut, but the dems want an increased income tax on small business owners. They got what they and the president want, but are unwilling to compromise on the job killing tax increase. Typical.

how do you go from taxing millionaires and billionaires  to increasing income taxes on small business owners?

a million dollar business is a small business, and those types of businesses employ the most people. Many of those business owners include those earnings on their personal income tax due to the increased burden of filing as a corp.

Yes, business owners count those profits as personal income because they're organized as S corps. They receive absolutely no benefit from the government from being chartered as an S corp. That's why most people when starting a business just go the DBA route. So much simpler and there's no huge burden of having the accountant fill out a couple extra forms.

None of this is accurate.  KU business school?

S-Corps are corps, legally the same thing.  You don't charter as an S-Corp, you elect S-Corp tax status.   S-Corps receive an enormous benefit from the Government (State of incorporation) because they have limited liability but aren't taxed as a separate entity (aka "pass-thru" tax treatment). 

Owners of S-Corp stock count profits as personal income, because the profits are personal income, there is no corporate taxable entity.

You are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if go dba rather than organize as an LLC, it costs like $150. 

Visit the Kansas Secy of State website for forms, filing info, and a more!

 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yes, business owners count those profits as personal income because they're organized as S corps. They receive absolutely no benefit from the government from being chartered as an S corp. That's why most people when starting a business just go the DBA route. So much simpler and there's no huge burden of having the accountant fill out a couple extra forms.

 

what a moron

[06wildcat]

I know you get it FSD. This is terrible bbsing on your part.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I know you get it FSD. This is terrible bbsing on your part.

Get what?   


All I know is that what Dems call "Rich people who don't pay their fair share" are the same people the Repubs call "small business owners".

The fact of the matter is, these people are being witch hunted by the left because they represent a minority class and are easy targets.

[06wildcat]

I know you understand sarcasm. Again, terrible bbsing on your part. Absolutely terrible.

[LickNeckey]

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/free-falling-in-milwaukee-a-close-up-on-one-citys-middle-class-decline/250100/#slide1

 

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/free-falling-in-milwaukee-a-close-up-on-one-citys-middle-class-decline/250100/#slide1

 

So, 31% poor people, 24% middle class, and 27% affluent. That does not even come close to adding up to 100%.

[LickNeckey]

something we all can agree on

[Bookcat]

the height of The Great American Class War was from 1932 to 1980. It's true.

Look at how much we taxed the rich. Those "job creators" were just pummeled by our govt. during the greatest economic boom in American history, which also coincided with the greatest population boom in our country's history. Life expectancy jumped 8 years for women and 7 years for men during the same period.

..........all the while, those valiant job creators were getting TAXED out the ass. How did they do it?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

the height of The Great American Class War was from 1932 to 1980. It's true.

Look at how much we taxed the rich. Those "job creators" were just pummeled by our govt. during the greatest economic boom in American history, which also coincided with the greatest population boom in our country's history. Life expectancy jumped 8 years for women and 7 years for men during the same period.

..........all the while, those valiant job creators were getting TAXED out the ass. How did they do it?

They didn't. The assumption that the rich actually paid 90% of their income in taxes is laughable. Want a fun exercise? Compare government revenue as a share of GDP against your chart. You'll see a funny thing. The tax rate has almost no impact on revenue.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I love how the libs chase the rabbit right down the hole re: the top marginal income tax bracket.  Dur, if the top tax bracket was higher, there'd be less poor people and we'd all be the richeriest. 

Lib leadership has absolute faith that its contingent will take everything it says at face value and repeat it ad nauseum.  No questions asked, no independent thought, a dearth of cognitive reasoning.  Rightfully so.  What an embarrassment of humanity.

[sonofdaxjones]

seriously hope Dax and Fake Sugar chime in. 

I'm sick of explaining things to you.  As if this self defining phrase needs any explaining.

 

Why am I going to chime in? 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

As long as we have what's left of a free market system, the classes in America are not defined by income, but by ability and attitude. If you are willing to work hard and take responsibility for your actions, you can achieve any monetary class you want. I know liberals are trying hard to limit that ability and keep the surf's begging for the government for handouts, but you can still work yourself out of any situation you want. Anyone that is counting on the government for happiness will be sorely disappointed.

[Bookcat]

As long as we have what's left of a free market system, the classes in America are not defined by income, but by ability and attitude. If you are willing to work hard and take responsibility for your actions, you can achieve any monetary class you want. I know liberals are trying hard to limit that ability and keep the surf's begging for the government for handouts, but you can still work yourself out of any situation you want. Anyone that is counting on the government for happiness will be sorely disappointed.

the limits have been set on the middle class a little more each year.  Skyrocketing health care costs, energy costs, higher cost of living, kicked out of their homes, all the while the average working stiff has his/her wages frozen the last 3 years, which is essentially a paycut. The result? Middle class demand on consumer goods and services, the main driving force behind our economic engine is completely stalled.

So yeah, there is your system for "achieving any monetary class you want". What a fool if you really believe that. So, you wanna talk about limits? Yeah, lets have that discussion.

and you claim that liberals are "trying to limit that ability and keep the surfs begging". Actually, exactly the opposite. The goal is to allow the middle class to gain prosperity through the ethics of hard work and affordable compensation for that work which seem to be the only words you can get a conservative to answer to. You wanna throw out little cute anecdotal evidence about the lazy and shameless loading up their shopping cart for the sake of the more relevant and accurate example of someone working 50+ hours per week and barely scraping by to raise their family. Where is the conservative sticking up for that person? Nowhere to be found...all the while cranking out political ads about God, respect, and sympathy.

Of course, these are the same type of people who call Social Security and "entitlement" when after 45 years of busting their hump their claim to a stable and healthy retirement are labeled as some sort of government handout that was never earned.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

As long as we have what's left of a free market system, the classes in America are not defined by income, but by ability and attitude. If you are willing to work hard and take responsibility for your actions, you can achieve any monetary class you want. I know liberals are trying hard to limit that ability and keep the surf's begging for the government for handouts, but you can still work yourself out of any situation you want. Anyone that is counting on the government for happiness will be sorely disappointed.

the limits have been set on the middle class a little more each year.  Skyrocketing health care costs, energy costs, higher cost of living, kicked out of their homes, all the while the average working stiff has his/her wages frozen the last 3 years, which is essentially a paycut. The result? Middle class demand on consumer goods and services, the main driving force behind our economic engine is completely stalled.

So yeah, there is your system for "achieving any monetary class you want". What a fool if you really believe that. So, you wanna talk about limits? Yeah, lets have that discussion.

and you claim that liberals are "trying to limit that ability and keep the surfs begging". Actually, exactly the opposite. The goal is to allow the middle class to gain prosperity through the ethics of hard work which seem to be the only words you can get a conservative to answer to.

Of course, these are the same type of people who call Social Security and "entitlement" when after 45 years of busting their hump their claim to a stable and healthy retirement are labeled as some sort of government handout that was never earned.

I honestly feel bad for you. You seem to think you have no future and something is keeping you from achieving what you want in life.

Government now sets the limits on what an individual can achieve, not other citizens or corporations. Everything you mention, health care costs, energy prices, home prices, etc, are all highly regulated industries that, had they been left alone, would be regulated by the free market and the will of the people. Supply and demand.  Wages are stagnant over the last 3 years because our economy is stagnant and unemployment is high. Not sure what you are implying with that.

People kicked out of their home? Thank the government (Barney Frank, etc) for that entire fiasco. They encouraged fannie and freddy to buy loans they knew were bad. We had people that were living comfortably in homes that were paid off take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity and simply blew the money. The didn't qualify for these loans or even need to show they had income.  Fannie and freddie (government entities) gobbled them up and begged for more. Guess what happened? They defaulted and were kicked out tf their home. Too bad for them. It still comes down to personal responsibility, but you want the same government that allowed them to fail to step in and help them, compounding the problem and enforcing the attitude of government dependency and entitlement.

Social Security is a failed system that needs a complete overhaul and phased out over the next 50 years. We need to keep our promise to those already in the system, but we also need to instill in people the need to prepare for retirement and give them the right investment tools to do so.  Again, personal responsibility.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Oh mercy. I love these sort of "liberal stream of consciousness" kind of posts. So many inane points. It's like Occupy Wall Street in condensed form. This is going to take some time to disect.

the limits have been set on the middle class a little more each year.  Skyrocketing health care costs

Health care costs have skyrocketed because (1) we have stifled competition, (2) no constraints on malpractice, and (3) we have a structure that immunizes consumers from cost by using insurance for everything. In turn, we buy tons of treatment we don't need, and there is no incentive to drop costs. The market is not allowed to work. You have liberal policy to thank for all these problems. Your answer to this dilemma was ObamaCare. More government and more insurance, paid for by someone else!

energy costs,

Not much that can be done about the price of energy, but liberals have strangling domestic energy production for decades. This is the president . Liberals hate any non-"green" energy and then they lament rising energy prices.

higher cost of living,

See energy prices, above.

kicked out of their homes,

See "lack of accountability," liberal tenant no. 3.

all the while the average working stiff has his/her wages frozen the last 3 years, which is essentially a paycut.

The economy sucks. Raising taxes "to fix the income gap" won't improve the economy. Neither will more government red tape.

The goal is to allow the middle class to gain prosperity through the ethics of hard work and affordable compensation for that work which seem to be the only words you can get a conservative to answer to.

Not sure what "affordable compensation" means, but I'm guessing this is some sort of pro-union screed. Unions worked out real well for the auto industry, didn't they? But by all means, keep on fighting market realities, and American companies will keep exporting jobs overseas.

You wanna throw out little cute anecdotal evidence about the lazy and shameless loading up their shopping cart for the sake of the more relevant and accurate example of someone working 50+ hours per week and barely scraping by to raise their family. Where is the conservative sticking up for that person? Nowhere to be found...all the while cranking out political ads about God, respect, and sympathy.

Read Adam Smith, please. Conservatives want prosperity for everyone, or at least for as many people as possible. This is done by improving the economy. Simply taking money from one person to subsidize the lifestyle of another is not a sustainable model, and does not lead to economic growth.

Of course, these are the same type of people who call Social Security and "entitlement" when after 45 years of busting their hump their claim to a stable and healthy retirement are labeled as some sort of government handout that was never earned.

Social security has become an entitlement because most recipients now receive far more than they pay into the system, due to an outdated model that has not been adjusted for life expectancy. Ironically, those arguing for "means testing" of SS want to make it even more of an entitlement program.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yet there are those on the left who only "stick up" for the so called working stiff and minorities long enough to get their vote . . . then they disappear until the next election.

[06wildcat]

Social security has become an entitlement because most recipients now receive far more than they pay into the system, due to an outdated model that has not been adjusted for life expectancy. Ironically, those arguing for "means testing" of SS want to make it even more of an entitlement program.

This is actually not true at all. In addition to SS taxes being regressive, benefits are also regressive.