PDA

View Full Version : World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over



Fraggle145
8/22/2011, 12:27 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over?xrs=share_copy

Well lets see if the new video feature works... (apparently not or I'm not smart enough to figure it out) If not here is a linky: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

Pretty funny, and sadly true commentary about what seems to be going on...

badger
8/22/2011, 12:59 PM
I know it sounds silly and funny, but I really don't think either side understands how the other feels. I have no idea what it feels like to be a millionaire/billionaire, because I've never been one. Millionaires/billionaires may never have felt the burden of having utilities shut off or family members go without food/medication/housing because of lack of money. Poor people may not know what it's like to feel responsible for a company that employs hundreds/thousands, to know that your tiny mistakes cost thousands of dollars, or your large mistakes cost millions.

It's easy to ask someone else to take the burden, to say what someone else should do. That's why I kind of rolled my eyes at Warren's comments. He was telling Congress what they should do, what his fellow richies should do. Yeah, you tell those people what they should do, Warren.

sooner_born_1960
8/22/2011, 01:06 PM
'bout time.

Veritas
8/22/2011, 01:21 PM
Pretty funny, and sadly true commentary about what seems to be going on...

Stewart built and burned a straw man.

Here are the givens:
A) Fox talking heads say that the 50% of people in this country who aren't paying taxes should be paying some taxes.
B) Fox talking heads say that taxes shouldn't be raised on the top 2%.

So Stewart builds his straw man by intimating that because A and B are true, there was a C: Fox talking heads saying that the money that would be raised by taxing the top 2% should be generated by taxing the 50% at the bottom. But there weren't any clips of that because noboody was trying to make that point.

That doesn't stop Stewart, though, from editing clips together to make it seem like someone did so that he could do some napkin math to sshow how stupid the idea is (even though nobody proposed it).

It's a straw man argument that he could only get to by non-sequitor with an implied ad-hominem attack on Fox news outlets thrown in just to fill out the illogical triumvirate punch card.

Fraggle145
8/22/2011, 02:43 PM
Right, nobody else proposed it. But what exactly do they propose if they dont want A and/or B.

Someone is going to have to take the burden. And even if A, we probably arent going to make up the deficit, by that alone unless it is around half of what the people who arent paying taxes own. However, with a marginal increase on the top 2% of the country, by closing tax loopholes we could largely make up the deficit or at least affect it on a greater scale. At least that is the argument that I got out of it.

What about the other taxes that the poor do pay, besides income taxes? Do those just not count? :confused:

I'm not saying that everyone shouldnt pay something. I think we all should. And I agree it isnt as easy as Stewart is suggesting.

Also I think you like to use fancy logic words. ;)

Veritas
8/22/2011, 03:39 PM
Right, nobody else proposed it. But what exactly do they propose if they dont want A and/or B.

Someone is going to have to take the burden. And even if A, we probably arent going to make up the deficit, by that alone unless it is around half of what the people who arent paying taxes own. However, with a marginal increase on the top 2% of the country, by closing tax loopholes we could largely make up the deficit or at least affect it on a greater scale. At least that is the argument that I got out of it.

What about the other taxes that the poor do pay, besides income taxes? Do those just not count? :confused:

I'm not saying that everyone shouldnt pay something. I think we all should. And I agree it isnt as easy as Stewart is suggesting.

Also I think you like to use fancy logic words. ;)
Nah, it just alarms me when Stewart's commentary is taken seriously. It's almost always poorly constructed and is only sometimes funny.

Generally speaking I'm frustrated by what passes for commentary these days. I very rarely watch major news networks but was stuck watching Greta van Sustewhatever while at a friends home the other day. I was amazed at the deluge of negative words: unstable, hate, fear, scared, crisis, etc. Then my friend flipped over to MSNBC and it was more of the same: constant negative prognostication. I don't worry about the economy but if I funneled that BS into my skull on a regular basis I probably would be.

I'm not sure what you're referencing by "the other taxes" that the poor pay; they pay the same use/consumption taxes as everyone else as well as SS/Med. To my knowledge there aren't any taxes levied only on the poor.

To fix the economy we've got to slash the crap out of entitlement spending and defense (right after we get our kids out of those Muslim cesspools). Taxes need to get bumped across the board for everyone. By what percentage, I don't know. But one without the other is ineffective.

That'll never happen though because you'd be pissing off every special interest group out there.

TUSooner
8/22/2011, 03:45 PM
Stewart built and burned a straw man....

WTF do you think the Fox-heads are building? Holy ****, Veritas. You'd think poor people are just a bunch of cynical schemers out to screw the rich? That they're happy to be poor free-loaders because they COULD be rich too if only they were as virtuous and hard working as too you are? (And maybe had your parents & stuiff.) Yo, we all know there are plenty of ne'er do wells out there who can't or won't take care of themselves like they should, but not all poor people are that. At least Stewart's hyperbole is obvious and done for satirical effect; the Fox-heads are dead serious when they build and burn their own poverty monster. Lighten up on the indignation.

Ike
8/22/2011, 04:06 PM
When we talk about who pays what, why do we always assume that everything but the tax policy is stationary. IMO, the travesty of 50% paying zero income tax is not a travesty of tax policy, but a travesty of differential income growth (or the lack thereof) between various tax brackets. Income at the bottom hasn't even kept up with inflation. Income at the very top has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 2 or 3 decades. The travesty is that we have a lot more people not making enough to be asked to pay taxes.

TUSooner
8/22/2011, 04:10 PM
When we talk about who pays what, why do we always assume that everything but the tax policy is stationary. IMO, the travesty of 50% paying zero income tax is not a travesty of tax policy, but a travesty of differential income growth (or the lack thereof) between various tax brackets. Income at the bottom hasn't even kept up with inflation. Income at the very top has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 2 or 3 decades. The travesty is that we have a lot more people not making enough to be asked to pay taxes.

So we need to lower the taxable-income threshold to get those suckers paying! :rolleyes:

OUHOMER
8/22/2011, 04:12 PM
Yep, lets tax the poor, My mom makes $900 a month, she 72 plus, after she pays her supplemental insurance, and medications, she has a few dollars left, when I say a few dollars, i mean a few dollars.

no reason she couldnt taxes like the rest of us..

SCOUT
8/22/2011, 04:14 PM
I struggle with the idea that 50% is now considered "the bottom." I actually agree with your point, but I think the number of people that get included is too high.

KantoSooner
8/22/2011, 04:18 PM
The poor pay relatively speaking more in terms of use taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes etc. A $5 toll means more to a guy making $18,000 a year than it does to a guy making $180,000. That's obvious.
The real devil, though, lies in the system of exclusions and deductions that we've built into the system over the past 90 years or so.
I would like to see a 'fair' system in which everybody pays the same percentage. And, if we need provide extra help to the poor then we either provide direct aid or we exempt some categories from taxation. (Like food. I could live with the 'inequity' of not taxing lobster if it meant that some poor bastard scraping by didn't have to pay tax on his hamburger and macaroni).
I dont' know what the rate would be, but, I would imagine that somewhere between 15-20%, without deductions, across the board, would pretty much catch it.
And yet, both dems and reps get red faced when I bring it up. What's unfair with this?

tommieharris91
8/22/2011, 05:06 PM
I struggle with the idea that 50% is now considered "the bottom." I actually agree with your point, but I think the number of people that get included is too high.

You should note how many people are working now.

When you find that, you might start thinking that fixing GDP and unemployment should take precedent over paying down the national debt.

okie52
8/22/2011, 05:09 PM
So much for the "shared sacrifice".

The left is (always) railing about the tax cuts for the rich under W and it will net about $700,000,000,000 over 10 years if the old Clinton tax rates were reinstated on the rich. Now if all of the Clinton tax rates would be reinstated on everyone that would be almost $4,000,000,000,000 over 10 years...but lets just focus on the rich and forget about the 3.2 trillion dollars that are not going to be paid by everyone else.

Surprised Stewart missed those facts...

tommieharris91
8/22/2011, 05:17 PM
But hey, if you get people working, more people will have income to tax. Start there, then start bitching about how to tax people.

okie52
8/22/2011, 05:23 PM
Thats why W and Obama have been afraid to raise taxes...to get people working.

pphilfran
8/22/2011, 06:09 PM
I get tired of hearing about the middle class being destroyed...

Let's take a look at actual data...from IRS....AGI...1993-2007 (largest range of dates they offer)


The folks reporting 20k a year or less got screwed...there are 6.4 million less in this group then in 93, a 12% reduction...total compensation for the group dropped 23% so as a group they got paid less....and then inflation kills them...

The people reporting 20-50k a year also did poorly, though not as bad as the lowest group...this group grew by 6.1 million, a 16% increase...total compensation for the group was us 18%...inflation did take away some of their buying power...

Now, this is where it gets interesting...

The 50-200k group grew by 128%...more than doubled in size....this pay scale is the range most would consider middle class...so it damn sure ain't dead...total compensation grew by 165% so they about matched inflation...

200k to a million...to me, these are not obscene compensation rates...we need a bunch of these...and I should be happy since this group grew by 347%...compensation up by 349%....

The rich, over a million a year in AGI grew by 490% (an additional 325k returns)...compensation grew a staggering 721%...those 325 thousand returns generated as much AGI income as the entire 20k to 50k group...a group of 44.9 million returns...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/agichange.jpg

pphilfran
8/22/2011, 06:10 PM
That wage info tells me that if you don't have skills you will be left behind...a days of a cashier making middle class pay are gone...

soonercruiser
8/22/2011, 06:33 PM
Class warfare! Class warfare!
When will it end? Probably never.

soonercruiser
8/22/2011, 06:44 PM
Why the he11 doesn't Buffet just pay more taxes, or work harder for more parity with his employees??



Deroy Murdock (who is black, BTW)
August 19, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Go Ahead, Rich Libs: Pay More Taxes There’s nothing stopping Warren Buffett from writing Uncle Sam a check.

Rich liberals seem frightfully ignorant that the data very clearly demonstrate how the tax code soaks the wealthy, while letting the economy’s bottom half escape scot-free.

• “George Soros says he agrees and congratulates Warren Buffett,” the financier’s spokesman told Reuters. “The rich are hurting their own long term interests by their opposition to paying more taxes.”
(And, we know what a good guy Soros is, don't we?)
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275005/go-ahead-rich-libs-pay-more-taxes-deroy-murdock#

And, of course there are opinions in opposition to Buffet.



Retired Amex CEO Contests Warren Buffett's Call for Higher Taxes on the Rich
New York (August 22, 2011)
By Danielle Lee, Accounting Today
Former chairman and chief executive of American Express Harvey Golub took to the opinion pages of Monday’s Wall Street Journal in response to billionaire Warren Buffett’s “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich” New York Times op-ed.

He also addressed President Obama in the rebuttal, writing that he "deeply resent[s]" that Obama “has decided that I don't need all the money I've not paid in taxes over the years, or that I should leave less for my children and grandchildren and give more to him to spend as he thinks fit.”

“I also resent that Warren Buffett and others who have created massive wealth for themselves think I'm ‘coddled’ because they believe they should pay more in taxes,” he wrote. “I certainly don't feel ‘coddled’ because these various governments have not imposed a higher income tax. After all, I did earn it.”

Golub wrote that he expects to pay 80 to 90 percent of his current yearly income in federal and state income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and federal and state estate taxes, asking: “Isn’t that enough?”

http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/retired-ceo-contests-buffetts-higher-taxes-rich-59633-1.html

soonercruiser
8/22/2011, 06:48 PM
And, of course the agruments on the Left are ignoring the 3,000 pound gorilla in the economy!



Higher Taxes on the Rich Won't Be Enough
Jack Temple
The Washington Post recently reported that, in town hall meetings across the country, Congressional Republicans have faced criticism from their constituents about their unyielding opposition to raising taxes, particularly on the wealthy and corporations. These protests come at a time when, as the article observes, Democrats are aiming to “change the national narrative on taxes” in order to shore up public support for steep increases on the wealthiest one to two percent of Americans.

Exactly what the new narrative might be remains unclear. But one thing is certain: While raising taxes on the wealthy remains a crucial policy imperative, it won't be enough to address the nation's revenue needs. Following Warren Buffett’s most recent demand that the federal tax code stop “coddling” millionaires with generous deductions, the Joint Committee on Taxation along with the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury released an analysis estimating that a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $1 million per year would yield a mere $500 billion over the next decade. Similarly, a Treasury report from July of 2010 found that repealing the Bush tax cuts only on households making over $250,000 would produce $670 billion in revenues over the next decade -- compared to $3.67 trillion in revenues if those tax cuts were repealed for all households.
http://www.policyshop.net/home/2011/8/22/higher-taxes-on-the-rich-wont-be-enough.html

SicEmBaylor
8/22/2011, 08:10 PM
Stewart built and burned a straw man.

Here are the givens:
A) Fox talking heads say that the 50% of people in this country who aren't paying taxes should be paying some taxes.
B) Fox talking heads say that taxes shouldn't be raised on the top 2%.

So Stewart builds his straw man by intimating that because A and B are true, there was a C: Fox talking heads saying that the money that would be raised by taxing the top 2% should be generated by taxing the 50% at the bottom. But there weren't any clips of that because noboody was trying to make that point.

That doesn't stop Stewart, though, from editing clips together to make it seem like someone did so that he could do some napkin math to sshow how stupid the idea is (even though nobody proposed it).

It's a straw man argument that he could only get to by non-sequitor with an implied ad-hominem attack on Fox news outlets thrown in just to fill out the illogical triumvirate punch card.

I *heart* you.

Fraggle145
8/22/2011, 09:51 PM
I'm not sure what you're referencing by "the other taxes" that the poor pay; they pay the same use/consumption taxes as everyone else as well as SS/Med. To my knowledge there aren't any taxes levied only on the poor.

To fix the economy we've got to slash the crap out of entitlement spending and defense (right after we get our kids out of those Muslim cesspools). Taxes need to get bumped across the board for everyone. By what percentage, I don't know. But one without the other is ineffective.

That'll never happen though because you'd be pissing off every special interest group out there.

Right that is what I was talking about. We all pay those. Those cost the poor a disproportionately higher amount of their income than they do for the rich.

I agree with pretty much everything else in your post... I just think there should be some thought to proportionality.

Veritas
8/22/2011, 09:59 PM
WTF do you think the Fox-heads are building?
Not a straw man, which is when you create a caricatured version of your opponent's view so that you can then burn it down. They may, however, be guilty of other sins of fallacious logic.

Either way your response is a red herring that doesn't rebut a single thing I said.

okie52
8/22/2011, 10:09 PM
That wage info tells me that if you don't have skills you will be left behind...a days of a cashier making middle class pay are gone...

Some on this board think that is unfair

tommieharris91
8/23/2011, 08:43 AM
Some on this board think that is unfairIf running a cash register is all they are doing, minimum wage is all a cashier deserves. Those jobs are usually filled by people who's day job is high school or freshman year of college though.

JohnnyMack
8/23/2011, 09:25 AM
Not a straw man, which is when you create a caricatured version of your opponent's view so that you can then burn it down. They may, however, be guilty of other sins of fallacious logic.

Either way your response is a red herring that doesn't rebut a single thing I said.

Nah, TU is totally pwning you right now. You're Osborne, he's Switzer.

Veritas
8/23/2011, 09:31 AM
Nah, TU is totally pwning you right now. You're Osborne, he's Switzer.C'mon, you can do better than that. If you're looking for someone to stump for Fox you're looking to the wrong person.