Print This
Email This
I'm talking about a government that takes $800 billion of our dollars to selectively choose which rich people will get to thrive in the coming financial meltdown.
Gwen Ifill wondered aloud at the Vice Presidential debate how Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes on people earning more than $250,000 per year was not class warfare.
I have news for you, Gwen Ifill. I have news for you, America.
Class warfare is upon you, whether you would risk it or not.
Do I support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans? Hell Yes I do. Is it fair to tax one group of people more than another? Of course not. Ask me if I really care. Go ahead, Ask me. I’m waiting.
What’s what you say? Do I care if rich people get taxed more than I do?
No. I do not.
I care that the American people- and I’m talking about the 95 percent of us who are unfortunate enough to not own our own yacht, has seen its wages systematically degraded while the cost of living has risen exponentially for the last 4 decades. At a rally this morning, Sarah Palin blamed this on the rising costs of energy, but she’s only half right.
Just because they’re not using guns, bombs, tanks, and nukes, doesn’t mean that there isn’t violence going on in America today.
I’m talking about class warfare: I’m talking about the purposeful humiliation, degradation, and elimination of people who are not obscenely rich. I’m talking about our poorest citizens sacrificing their lives in the army for a war that serves only to benefit a handful of evil- that’s right- you can quote me- EVIL individuals who pull the strings in our country.
I’m talking about a government that takes $800 billion of our dollars to selectively choose which rich people will get to thrive in the coming financial meltdown.
(I told you it had only just begun.)
Today on C-SPAN, the chairman of Lehman brothers was asked why his company was singled out, and was denied a bailout package that was given to other similar companies. His response?
“Until the day they put me in the ground, I will wonder.”
But he needn’t wonder, and neither do we.
The consolidation and monopolization of our financial system is occuring right before our very eyes. Before the end of this crisis, you will see Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan becoming perhaps the most powerful banks that the world has ever seen. Why is this a bad thing? Because I know at very least, firsthand, the kind of business that J.P. Morgan is- and you can ask any other Chase customer the same.
To answer your charge, dear conservatives- why don’t you just put your money in another bank?
A) I never put it in Chase in the first place- when I opened my account, it was called Bank One- which was bought out by J.P. Morgan a few years ago.
B) Chase has a virtual monopoly on ATMs in the Chicago area. If you don’t want to pay a hand, arm, leg, and a foot to withdraw, you MUST bank with them.
C) As I informed the Chase customer service reps this afternoon, there is no where else to turn. WAMU was large enough to collapsed, Lehman was not connected enough to be bailed out, but J.P. Morgan is going to be around for a long, long time because it has friends in the right places. (Or the wrong ones, considering that the Saudi royal family owns a huge stake of the company.)
Friends, we are sparring over apples and oranges, but both of them are rotten.
If we do not find a legitimate independent candidate to tear down this wicked system soon, then the class warfare encompassing our culture will be the end of us.
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
Recent Comments
29 RESPONSES TO "AMERICA, CLASS WARFARE IS UPON YOU"
Tim, when you get the top spot on Brazencareerist, you gotta come harder than that.
Take notes:
The richest people in this country already pay more in taxes than ever before.
250k is not enough to own a yacht.
If you raise taxes on the wealthy, there is a very strong likelyhood that the Government will take in LESS revenue.
Lowering the capital gains tax would lead to MORE government revenue.
Lowering corporate taxes in America would be GOOD for ALL Americans.
The men and women serving our country are not all poor. In fact, MOST of them are not poor. http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/95512_1.pdf
Weird Scott that you took your research from an extremely conservative think tank.
... and that is why the rich have those off-shore banks! It's not like the average person would have an off-shore bank - like the rich or big corporate companies!
We have seen how the trickle down tax breaks work - TWICE! During Regan and Bush the lesser - have tried the same methds - The rich get the golden parachute - the rest get the golden shower. And I am getting tired of being trinkled on!
Anon - Provide contradictory evidence to the Heritage study.
CK - If we raise taxes on the rich even more, they'll put even more of their money in offshore bank accounts. Your solution seems to be that we should raise taxes on the rich so as to disincentivize them from illegally placing money overseas to avoid taxes - that's brilliant (note my sarcasm)
As far as the corporations aspect of your comment - Corporations leave their profits from non-domestic investments overseas because as soon as they bring them home, they have to pay U.S. tax rates. I see two options to remedy this:
1. make that illegal thus forcing them to pay taxes on overseas profits regardless of if they actually bring them back to the US - in which case the companies will just reincorporate in a non U.S. country thus greatly diminishing a revenue resource for the US gov
2. Lower US corp tax rates. That way it wouldn't be so costly for corps to bring the money home.
All this lib "tax the rich" b.s. sounds great unless you actually understand the consequences.
The only aspect of this post that I agree with is the need to support an independent candidate - so I'll just run with that.
I think that most people's minds are made up about the Presidental race. Now what? I think voters need to understand that the local elections could end up impacting them greatly as well. State and local expenditures account for up to 55% of total tax revenue outlays. 55% is a huge number and can influence your community greatly. The only way we will ever find a viable third party is by supporting them at the ground level.
Rational voter ignorance cannot be tolerated anymore, while it's useful to vote a straight party ticket, I think that we need to get a clue as to what our local constituents are thinking and planning to do with our money.
No third party on your local ticket? Run yourself. Seriously. If McCain and Obama are accused of wicked pasts and paltry experience and can still run for President, little old you can run for something too. Case in point, my dear mother happened upon the Democratic headquarters in town 4 years ago to find there was no Dem for drain commissioner. They put her on the ticket. It was worth a shot.
Want to know a great political secret? Face to face meeting, babies, and dogs. Meet people, bring your dog, or dog treats for theirs, and give babies hugs and lollipops. You'll be elected in no time at all.
This post is meant to incite fear - and whether or not you agree with him, Tim does a great job at motivating people to think, and hopefully, take some d*mn action.
So, who's got your vote for county commissioner?
Milena- there's no need to incite- I'm afraid. A lot of us are, and it has nothing to do with terrorists lurking in the shadows like you candidate would have us believe. We're afraid of losing our homes, health care plans, our jobs and not being able to send our kids to college because of regressive tax policies and a trend in government since Reagan took power to alienate the middle class and provide tax breaks and loop holes for wealthy corporations and people. Clinton was also a part of this- the deregulation bill that he signed in 1999 is a huge factor in the financial meltdown we're seeing today.
I'm also afraid because class warfare is not a term that you're supposed to mention without asking for a great deal of trouble, but oh well.
Scott- that's just not true. The rich paid more taxes under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc. etc. Lowering corporate taxes will be good for a few Americans, but I think that the last 8 years have clearly shown trickle down economics to be a fraud and a failure.
If you seriously want to finance the war on terror, or keep basic social services going, you NEED to raise taxes, and taxing health care plans and middle class income is not going to raise much money. It has to come from somewhere, and the rich foot the bill. I'm not saying it's fair, but it needs to be done.
Raising taxes and paying taxes doesn't bother me; paying taxes is a privilege, because it means you're making money. Just put me in a position to MAKE money and create opportunities, that's what's important.
For those rich folks, how about less excess? Do you really need that 15,000 sqft house for only two people to live in? Ditch the extra cars and toys and find good ways to invest your money and give back to the community.
Tim,
While I realize numbers can be manipulated, I put forth the following excerpt from realclearmarkets.com
"In 1980, the top 1 percent of filers paid 19 percent of all federal income taxes. That was actually less than the total tax share of people collectively in the 11th to 25th percentiles, that is, middle income taxpayers making roughly between $24,000 and $35,000 (in 1980 dollars), and also less than the total share of those earning between $13,000 and $24,000, who represented the 26th to 50th percentiles.
A decade later, despite tax cuts in the 1980s that many critics claimed benefited the rich, our top 1 percent of filers were paying more of the total--25 percent of the country’s tax bill—than anyone else. The portion of taxes paid by the top filers continue to grow throughout the 1990s and into the new century, pausing only for recessions, which are generally periods in which the share of taxes paid by the rich falls because their incomes tend to decline the most. By 2005, the most recent year data are available, our top 1 percent of filers were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline, sometimes substantially."
Furthermore, the problem is not tax revenues but rather spending.
from the wall street journal:
"tax revenue stands at nearly 19% of GDP. That's above the modern historical average, and there is no precedent in recent history for raising and maintaining the tax take significantly higher than that."
Sunshine - put yourself in a position to make more money. It's nobody elses responsibility.
And
By spending their money in excess, rich people are helping the community. How many jobs are created when homes, cars, yachts etc are built.
I'm getting tired of people wanting to admonish "the rich" as if they are some lunatic money-hungry boogey-men. It's a convenient scapegoat for our troubles, and sure, there are fraudlent CEOs - and let's try them in courts of law. The vast majority of rich people are not frauds.
I'm baffled by the assumption that rich people do nothing but leach resources and never give back. Having worked in the financial industry for 4 years with high net worth clientele, there were certainly a few people who could have been considered lavish spenders, but not a single client was a horrible person out to get the little guy, or dishonest.
Furthermore, it was rare for a client to have attained their money without considerable effort, many were doctors, lawyers, or small-business owners, who worked 9-5, (like most of you out there), if not 7am-8pm, to build careers and wealth. How is that wrong? You are free to do the same thing, no one is stopping you.
My own boss was wealthy, and an incredibly generous man. He came from meager beginnings. He was a Vietnam Vet and came back to this country sleeping on porches and had one garish polyester suit to wear to work. He has built a successful career from absolutely nothing. Today, his funding for neurological research is helping to support some of the most promising work to cure Parkinson's disease. I won't even list all the other charities and organizations he supports with time and money, the list is far too exhaustive.
Most of the people I worked with who amassed their millions did it through honest, hard work, and many of them made elaborate plans to give huge sums to charities, religious institutions, places of higher learning, etc.
If you want to accuse "the rich," en masse, of atrocities fit for tyrants, it's going to be difficult to be taken seriously. By all means, single out the individuals who do cause harm and promote fraud and injustice. But these tirseome anthems only point to an individuals' irrational and uninformed opinions.
Milena,
Well said.
Tim,
With your disdain for monopolization and consolidation, it seems like you should be a prime spokesman for the free market system which us conservatives continually espouse. Glad to have you on board ;-)
Ryan- I'm not a communist- I think you need to have a balance and generally decentralization is a good thing- but I think in order to run a society you simply need to raise taxes. Especially if it's a society that is built on an ever-growing pile of debt.
Milena- I don't think all wealthy people are inherently evil- just the top 1 percent or so who can actually shift markets and direct policy in this country with their influence. Heck, even people making 500k a year are poor white trash compared to them. There are a lot of hard-working wealthy Americans who get taxed a lot, but they can afford it. Since you loathe nearly every social program save the military, I'll use that example. If you want to defeat the terrorists, you need to finance the war, which is very very very expensive, and only the government can really cover the responsibility.
The private contractors that we have set up in Iraq have done more harm than good- they are not subject to the same rules, training, and oversight that our boys in uniform are and they were largely responsible for a number of incidents that nearly sank the whole thing in 06 and early 07. If conservatives want to keep supporting this war, then you'll have to put up some money. Plain and and simple. Where else is it going to come from?
Scott- if the problem is spending then you should examine your own heroes- Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes presided over huge increases in spending and contributing to the national debt.
Tim,
Where did I say my heroes were Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes?
Nice try though.
Your "opinion" pails in comparison to my facts re taxes.
Actually Tim, the rich are paying a higher percentage of taxes under Bush than they were under Clinton. The tax system has actually become more progressive under Bush which has to frustrating for a guy like you.
In 1999, the top 5% of earners ($120k or more per year) paid 55% of all personal income taxes collected.
In 2006, the top 5% of earners ($153k or more per year) paid 60% of all personal income taxes collected.
Ouch, right? Let's get our facts straight before going to town.
Numbers and statistics (like most everything else in the world) can be skewed and altered to fit whatever ideal one is proposing, whether it's more free markets, increased government intervention and regulation, or any other idea you want. But when referring to the "rich", we're focusing on the wrong people. The "rich folks" that we all should be upset about are corporations (not just financial companies) who use government incentives, tax breaks, and otherwise 'sweetheart deals' to make sometimes obscene profits, then turn around and shelter the money to avoid taxation. I don't care how they do it, it should be illegal. Period.
We've seen what happens when the uber-rich has an unequal amount of wealth. While yes, they spend it, they also invest most of it in ways that usually don't benefit the 'average' family. Or worse yet, they figure out new ways to make more of it by designing new dervitave instruments that end up collapsing.
The 'rich' keep their money. The 'poor' spend it.
Tim -
Your article is reactionary liberal boiler plate.
Higher taxes on any earning group is a bad idea.
Further enriching the government is rarely the answer to society's problems.
What will higher taxes do but serve to further enable a government that sponsors programs like the bailout for which you have so much disdain?
You're piece is opinion based, lacking a factual framework. It's easy to blame "trickle down" economics when you don't have to back it up with any data.
Scott - you might be insane. BUT you might also have a better point than this author.
On the subject of Taxation; By using a dollar amount for tax rate computation, there is the REAL possibility that poor and middle class workers will get burned by the tax code, as in the problem with the Alternate Minimum Tax.
The percentage of households in the $250,000 or more income bracket is only 1.5%, and these people can easily divert income to move themselves into lower brackets or disappear completely from the income rolls.
Instead, think of a tax system indexed on percent of GDP as calculated by the Commerce Department, US Census, or OMB or on some other statistic that is variable and correlated to the total current wealth of the Nation.
Say that the median income is the break point above which one is obligated to pay taxes and there is a scale above there based on GDP that prescribes the marginal tax rate from some minimum rate to 100%.
That would mean that all individual income at or below the median income statistic for the latest complete set of numbers for the economy would be free of Federal taxation.
So, using numbers from the Internet, everyone making $48,000 or less per year would not be taxed on their income by the Federal Government.
The top 50% would be taxed at varying marginal rates all the way up to 100%.
Of course, IT IS ONLY FAIR that the top 50%, who would pay ALL the taxes should have special influence on Government affairs. Oh my gosh, they already do!
@KEVIN!- I actually support the bailout- just not the way it's being done. Why should certain companies be bailed out but others left to twist in the wind? Why aren't the taxpayers being treated as investors here?
How do higher taxes help out the government?
This bailout will be paid, eventually by higher taxes. Fair? No. Not by a long shot. But it's still better than allowing the entire financial system to collapse in order to teach a free market lesson to a few greedy CEOs.
Higher taxes does many wonderful things like keep bridges from collapsing, protect the nation from foreign threats, and provide assistance for those who can't pay outrageous medical bills.
Tim -
How many bridges were collapsing before the federal income tax? Have higher taxes on individuals saved us from dilapidated infrastructure over the course of the past 30 years?
55% of tax dollars go straight to the defense budget. This isn't going to change whether the income tax is higher or lower. What will higher taxes mean? Just more defense *spending*, whether it's necessary or not.
Are medical bills outrageous? Or do they reflect the actual cost of healthcare? Is this cost fair? Maybe not. Is government intervention going to lower this increasing cost? No chance.
I think the REAL question you should be asking yourself should have more to do with the scope and role of the government.
The real question has to do with spending. Not with taxing.
By focusing on "the rich" and making some ill-conceived argument about "class warfare," you are really just advocating wealth redistribution imposed by the federal government.
I think you and Karl Marx would get along just fine.
"Brazen Careerist?" Try "Brazen Socialist."
Well, you are *almost* focused on the important issue. It's not this: "the top 1 percent or so who can actually shift markets and direct policy in this country with their influence." Stop focusing on these people. In any society or country, no matter how you slice and dice it, there is going to be a top 1%. Who cares. The real question isn't that these people exist, but *what happened to the system* that enabled them to direct policy in this country.
Before there was a Freddie or a Fannie, or any of these other government-created market distortions, there was a truly free market. You know what that meant? That some people had to be told "no" once in a while. That some people went to borrow money for a house and were told no because they didn't have enough saved up, or they had a bad credit history, or they were trying to borrow too much, or buy a house that was too expensive for them. And heaven forbid anyone not have instant gratification for their every want or need. Special interest groups (like Acorn) somehow made the case that lenders were throwing good money away left and right because they were a bunch of racists denying loans to people on the basis of minority status. The special interests should have been ignored. Lenders were not willing to take on these risks because there was not enough return to make it worthwhile. So the government stepped up to the plate and offered to back them. And yes, those bankers could have walked away from all the free money, and sure it would have been the right thing to do, but then they would have been out of business.
We need to get the stupid government out of the business of business, period. There is no place in the Constitution where the federal government is endowed with the right (let alone the responsibility) to tamper with the mortgage lending market. And yes, people look at you like you're a kook when you suggest that the federal government should actually pay attention to the Constitution - it sounds so quaint. But look around you - the kooks were right. What makes me sick is that free markets and capitalism are actually being blamed for this.
@Tim - My main contention is not that I oppose paying taxes. Furthermore, I don't loathe all socialized programs, per say, but their bloated cost structures and inefficient execution. I have indicated numerous times I support a flat tax to fund public spending (around 15-17%) with anyone earning under approx. $40,000/yr. be exempt, and possibly include a graded tax introduction for the beginning brackets. (eg - $40,001 pays 5%, $50,000 pays 10%, etc.) Basic arithmetic shows us that under such a system, the richer you are the more you will naturally pay out in taxes. This solution could hardly be argued "unfair."
The other concern is that ever-increasing taxes are paradoxically resulting in ever-decreasing efficiency and satisfaction with results of socialized programs. There is ample evidence many social programs are failing. You would not find me complaining about socialized medicine if it were demonstrated to be successful, but the reality is that increased expenditures have not led to proportionately higher quality care or standards. This is a paradox unlike most other areas where increased expenditures over time generally lead to reduced costs, higher quality, and better outcomes. Eg, computers, telephones, electronics, automobiles.
Milton Friedman describes this phenomenon, “Some years ago, the British physician Max Gammon, after an extensive study of the British system of socialized medicine, formulated what he called "the theory of bureaucratic displacement." He observed that in "a bureaucratic system . . . increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production. . . . Such systems will act rather like ‘black holes,’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted production.’" Gammon’s observations for the British system have their exact parallel in the partly socialized U.S. medical system. Here, too, input has been going up sharply relative to output. This tendency can be documented particularly clearly for hospitals, thanks to the availability of high-quality data for a long period.” (Friedman, Hoover.org)
A tax system that is paired with entitlements rather than budgets is doomed to failure. Eligibilty for programs are increasing, and those who have the means to provide funding are disappearing as they join the ranks of the recipients, or direct their money outside our tax system. I fully support a fixed, flat tax collection, and using whatever taxes are gathered to fit within a budget. Excessive deficit spending cannot be tolerated and supported by tax payers for long without completely bankrupting a country.
The points I bring up cannot be ignored in any rational conversation. Solutions must at least consider that socialized programs are failing, and increasing funding without some kind of accountability and competition mechanisms will not improve them. There is nothing that prohibits the government from competing with private organizations to provide service with the exception of their own legislation. A great example occurred in Arizona with garbage collection. The public works dept. was ineffectual at collecting garbage in a timely and complete manner. Private companies were sought to replace the public system. However, instead of fully privatizing collection, the government was allowed to compete, on an equal level for procuring the services. Over a period of years, the public department won the contract back (I don't know if subsidy was involved, but if it was, that could have been a large factor) but the overall point is that competition does not have to be relegated to the private sector. If the government were allowed to compete and be held accountable, I maintain we'd see far better performance from them.
The top 5% of america is actually only making about $189000 a year per houshold.
Mind you that doesn't take into account a houshold of 1 or of 5.
Do you know any family making $180000 a year who owns a yacht?
It was on MSN that HALF of the US population makes less than $35,000. As to small companies making good money - I have nothing wrong with that. The issue I have are these fat-cats that make $20m for 17 days of work! I tell you what - I'll work for half that amount, twice as long and twice as hard! And what is one of the solution to the Financial Banks have? Lay off MORE Americans and off-shore the work! And BTW ... One of them had a million dollar party for their execs when they heard the bail-out passed! Yea, THAT'S being fiscally responsible! Don't feed me that B.S. - my waders only go chest high!
For the umpteenth time, I am not a socialist. I just think they had a few good ideas and that we should use some of them, and I'm not alone. Wealth redistribution? You betcha. Like the greatest redistribution of wealth in American's history under 8 years of W? Somebody needs to balance the scales, or the whole thing will topple over.
The Economist asked people who are experts on the subject which candidate had the better grasp and plan for the economy, and they overwhelming said Obama.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=hpte...
Also one of the banks have Jeb Bush and his cousin George Walker as employees ... you know their big brother (and cousin) George W. Bush - the prez! Why does all this look so familure? .... Oh yea! Neal Bush and the Silverado Loan fiasco!
Tim, first up I recommend you open an HSBC online savings account. It's got an interest rate that gives you a fighting chance at staving off devaluation due to inflation (above 3%) AND they refund any ATM fees you incur anywhere. They're also big enough that they likely will not get swallowed up by other banks.
Moving on, rich people should not be taxed at higher rates than they are now; though we should enforce the existing tax laws (we should start with the $300 billion owed to the IRS).
In fact no one should be taxed on their income. No one. Not any corporation or human being alive should be taxed on their income. It discourages a good thing (income) and encourages bad things (corruption, tax fraud, moving money outside the U.S.). Instead of taxing income we should tax things that are bad for general society. For instance pollution, gambling, drugs (including nicotine and alcohol) etc should be taxed to discourage them. It surprising to see a fellow Nader supporter take the stance that taxing the rich is the solution. Simply put, the rich will use their resources to avoid paying taxes so let's stop believing it's the solution.
Next, we need to cut government spending, by a lot. Military spending should be the first to go way, way, way down. By bringing all of our troops home and refocusing our efforts on defense we could literally save hundreds of billions.
Honestly, we don't really need to raise taxes. We already tax about the same as many other European countries, the difference is they use their money a lot more wisely on infrastructure and health care, while we bomb places and hire private companies to rebuild them. Instead of bailing out failing corporations we should begin heavily investing in our energy infrastructure, thus giving people jobs and reducing our need for foreign energy sources.
@Money- I am all for completely revising the tax code and tearing down the IMC- but it's going to take a long time- even after the day we see someone like Nader or Ron Paul get into office. There are a great deal of entrenched interests who are going to fight for the death on behalf of the status quo, and until they are all voted out of power or hanged in the streets, we need to find a way to stave off this crushing economic crisis, and I think at the moment taxing the rich is probably the best way. The day will come, friend, but we need a life-jacket right now.
But the same interests who prop up and support the Industrial Military Congressional Complex (and the fraudulent and unconstitutional Federal Reserve) are the same ones you're proposing taxing. If we were to enact a law taxing the rich at say 10-20% to recover assets to rebuild America (as has been done before), what makes you think these rich elitists wouldn't pack up their bags, hop in their jets / helicopters / yachts / submarines / teleportation devices and bounce to a different country?
Hmm...that's not such a terrible plan. I have the utmost faith that the average American would be more than willing to bootstrap for a few months and donate their time and energy towards building a sustainable infrastructure in exchange for the elite leaving town. It's not like we'd lose the brilliant scientists or engineers in this country, we all know you don't join the top 1% of the rich for being the smartest or hardest working.
It is funny to me that Tim continues to argue that a huge wealth distribution happened under Bush. It didn't and my previous comment which proved him completely incorrect hasn't been responded to. Not surprising, Tim has come up with his own agenda and he won't let things like those pesky facts get in the way.
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?