Skip to main content

View Diary: Here's a "fair deal" for you: a tiny % of our disposable income for more workers' lives. (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  From what I've seen around these parts (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayRaye, JesseCW, AoT, FG

    the consensus is that the only "fair" deal is to sock it to the rich.

    The rest of the Clinton Era prosperity package (e.g., have the middle class chip in a few bucks here and there as well) is a complete no-go.

    •  I sure wouldn't say that 39.6% (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JayRaye, JesseCW, tardis10, PhilJD, ferg

      is "socking it to the rich." But yes, a simple return of top-end marginal rates to Clinton-era levels does seem like the limit of the circumscribed discussion.

      One thing I never seem to see is a talk about why returning to those tax rates for all would be such a burden on the lower- and middle classes. It seems to be just a "given" that anyone earning fewer than X dollars couldn't possibly pay the same rate they did in the 1990s, back when there was a modicum of fairness and economic stability.

      I mean, I like government services. I want more of them; it helps to show that we live in an actual society and not an Ayn Randian paradise. These services cost money, and that cost should be borne by all.

      Of course the wealthy should pay more, and they will. But everyone should contribute, and the way the US has chosen to collect people's contributions is through taxation.

      If we're really at the point where the Democratic argument boils down to "People need to keep more of their money," then we're in deep trouble as a party and a Website. And if it's so important to keep taxes low on working-class folks, why is there absolutely zero discussion about the impending payroll tax's returning to its historical levels- a tax that affects every paycheck, but not investment income?

      •  What we've got is largely (though not entirely) (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JayRaye, PhilJD, ferg

        a Republican Party funded by the top 1% and a Democratic Party funded by the rest of the top 10%.

        Neither one wants to hike taxes on their own major donors.

        So we all pretend that a quarter of a million dollars is "middle class", and that people making low six figure incomes really, really need relief from those horribly abusive Clinton era rates.

        This place needs a PVP server.

        by JesseCW on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:29:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'd say the problem is that (7+ / 0-)

        many in the putative middle are fiscally precarious & they know it now. Poll after poll  has shown that while Americans are worried about deficits and the national debt, addressing unemployment and improving the economy has consistently been a bigger priority. Years of stagnant wages,high unemployment,disappearing pensions,rising health insurance costs,upside down mortgages,sky rocketing tuition etc. has,quite reasonably,fostered fear. And fear doesn't build social democracies.

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 10:01:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yes, perhaps this diary is far too pessimistic (7+ / 0-)

      But my point still stands: how dare either party bargain with our lives!?

      versus

      Their disposable income!?

      And why do we even allow such a debate to take place?

      The casual disregard for the value of working class lives has been much on my mind lately.

      And not just the disregard that the ruling class has for our lives, but how we ourselves, as a class, permit that disregard by our silence.

      WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For Nov: Lives lost trying to earn a living.

      by JayRaye on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:59:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site