Comments on: Say “No” to Conservative Class Warfare

By: No More Class Warfare Please

No More Class Warfare Please — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:05:54 +0000

Please read this article on the Individual Income Tax system and Class Warfare for an interesting fact based analysis of the fairness in the U.S. Individual Income tax system:NoMoreClassWarfare.com

Reply - Quote

By: Sal

Sal — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:21:08 +0000

I think some of you are missing the point of my disagreement with Ramesh. He is specifically discounting a plan put forth by Newt Gingrich because:

Cutting that rate will lower tax payments for many affluent people without changing their incentives at all. For them, the tax-rate cut has the same effect as giving them a tax credit. The federal government would lose a lot of revenue without much reducing the tax code’s distortion of American life.

Ramesh is basically saying that Newt’s plan is not good because it gives tax breaks to the affluent “upper-middle” class.

During this past presidential election, that was one of the arguments that bothered me about Obama. Separating Americans like that into different groups only serves to promote the liberal idea of class warfare. I have nothing against Ramesh, and he may not even have intended to engage in the class warfare argument, although I think he did, possibly unintentionally. The marginal tax rats need to be cut also as a way of promoting economic growth, and tax credits such as the one Ramesh is proposing have shown to do little in that regard.

If we are to look at a solution that will affect all Americans, I’d propose the following:

Drop the 15% bracket to 10%, the 25% bracket to 20%, the 32% to 28%, and the 35% to 33%. Of course, that is a pipe dream in an Obama administration.

Reply – Quote

By: Arkady

Arkady — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 05:39:59 +0000

So this entire debate is just a matter of defining middle-class? Seems like a lot to do about nothing? I live in MA and I agree that our cost of living is much higher than the rest of the nation. To put in another way, average income is 45k per family. However 45k/per family in MA is probably close to poverty and it would be a very VERY tough life.Still, can we truly expect regionally based tax policies?

Reply - Quote

By: Stew

Stew — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:52:21 +0000

I don't see the class warfare angle. He seems focused on those excluded not included. Seems like this is the issue: Ramesh just happened to hit on a pet-peeve of mine,... I take the idea of middle-class to be much broader than what Ramesh states it is...

Reply - Quote

By: Sal

Sal — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:04:18 +0000

Originally Posted By KnemonIf you've got a higher income than 85% of the country, you're upper middle-class.

I'm sorry, but a household with an $80,000 income is NOT upper-middle class. It is also not higher than 85% of the country.

Reply - Originally Posted By Knemon<\/a>If you\'ve got a higher income than 85% of the country, you\'re upper middle-class.<\/blockquote>\r\n\r\nI\'m sorry, but a household with an $80,000 income is NOT<\/b> upper-middle class. It is also not higher than 85% of the country.'); return false;">Quote

By: Knemon

Knemon — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:59:37 +0000
If you've got a higher income than 85% of the country, you're upper middle-class.
Reply - Quote

By: Don Meaker

Don Meaker — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:24:32 +0000
Barry Goldwater suggested that an equal share of income had a better claim to being fair than confiscatory taxes on higher incomes.Cut taxes until the economy grows. Then cut taxes further so that the government is a positive force on the economy.Cut government until it performs only the constitutionally granted powers. End federal government intervention in agriculture, education and intrastate commerce.
Reply - Quote

By: Sick of Ponnuru

Sick of Ponnuru — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:27:52 +0000
Bravo! Rather than standing "athwart history yelling STOP!", under Rich "milquetoast" Lowry and with Ponnuru, National Review more often seems to be standing aside saying "OK, as long as it helps 'middle class families'." Conservatives want to reduce the tax burden. Ponnuru wants to follow the Dems and slice and dice by demographics and only dole out tax breaks to those who behave in a certain way. I'm a single woman with no children and I resent that Ponnuru seems to think i have no family. I have parents, siblings, nieces and nephews. I want to help with my parents' healthcare, contribute to my nieces' and nephews' college funds. But rather than honor the conservative notion of letting people keep more of their own money to do with what they will, Ponnuru wants to have the government take from the childless and give it to other people's families. Sorry Ramesh, but I don't want to pay for your kids' college. He says that families are subsidizing others (e.g., social security, medicare.) well...my taxes are too! so I should contribute more than Ramesh because I haven't had children? and let me tell you, my use of government services is far lighter than ANY family. there's an argument to be made that the single, childless who care for themselves deserve to pay less...but it's an argument i won't make because i think the principle is 'low taxation', not "let's use government to spread the wealth around.'i've let my national review subscription lapse, but visit The Corner for the guest contributors.
Reply - Quote

By: Dai Alanye

Dai Alanye — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:23:35 +0000
Regret to say you're being a goober. Designing tax cuts to hit the largest number of people obviously makes good electoral sense, and that should be our major concern at present. What who earns where shouldn't be part of the equation. Further, regardless of whether you have children, you once were a child, and the tax credit is partly designed to help children and the parents who raise them. Is this a bad thing? I think not.Of course the best and widest application of a tax cut would be corporate taxes, since everyone buys goods the prices of which include taxes on the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer.
Reply - Quote

By: Keith L.

Keith L. — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:47:37 +0000
Well said. People should research the price of a two-bedroom apartment in New York City before declaring an income of $65,000 a year "upper-middle class."
Reply - Quote