“We Will Tax The Hell Out Of The Wealthy”: De Blasio Declares Class Warfare

Watching the Democratic debates this week has been a long litany of trillions in promised reparations, free tuition, climate program, and other plans. At a statistical zero of support in polling and even a majority of New Yorkers opposing his presidential run, Mayor Bill de Blasio decided to go for open class warfare. While he stopped short of actually calling to eat the rich, he promised “we will tax the hell out of the wealthy.”

De Blasio pledged “When I am president we will even up the score. We will tax the hell out of the wealthy to make this a fairer country.”

It was part of a theme of the debate that wealthier Americans are not paying their fair share and that our problems can be eliminated through trillion dollar programs paid for with higher taxes.

De Blasio however is facing the loss of wealthy citizens who are going to lower tax states like Florida. Now that New Yorkers cannot write off their higher taxes on their federal forms, many are fleeing. The loss of these top earners can be devastating. The top 1 percent that is being constantly attacked by the Democrats pays for nearly half of the income tax revenue in New York City. A family of four in New York earning $175,000 will pay 25 percent of their income in New York in taxes as compared to 14 percent for the same family in Florida.

The top 1 percent in the country as a whole pay a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

The glee at taxing the rich was captured by Sen. Elizabeth Warren who rubbed her hands after talking about taxing primary opponent John Delaney who is worth $65 million. The image reaffirmed the stereotype of Democrats on taxes and spending.

186 thoughts on ““We Will Tax The Hell Out Of The Wealthy”: De Blasio Declares Class Warfare”

      1. Hold on Paul. I have a home in Manhattan and I don’t deserve the incompetent swine. New Yorkers hate him as well yet they voted for him. The city is predominantly Democratic.

        Look at Baltimore. Democratic mayors for decades and the place is a sh1thole. Trump tweets virtually the same thing Cummings said a long time ago and I understand the city sent garbage trucks and landscapers to the bad areas. With just a tweet Tump has bettered the lives of those poor people that the Democrats have done nothing for. The African Americans and other poor people that live in that area should recognize that their African American legislator and their Democratic mayors did nothing for decades. They should all vote for Trump who in a matter of days got things done.

        1. Allan – if New Yorkers hate him, then don’t vote for him. They don’t put a gun to your head in the polling booth. Republicans have been mayor of NYC before. If they keep voting for that twit, they deserve that twit.

          1. “if New Yorkers hate him, then don’t vote for him.”

            Paul, you have to remember that the majority in NYC are Democrats and Democrats aren’t rational. Just look at some of the nuts on this blog. When New Yorker’s get really fed up they vote for the Republican. The people got fed up with Dinkins who did a lousy job so they voted for Giuliani who made the city liveable and vibrant again.

  1. State taxes are encouraging moving from high to low tax states. Similarly, if federal government taxes the wealthy at a sufficiently high rate they will leave the U.S. as France and U.K. found out not long ago.

  2. Last time I ooked wealthy was defined the moocher party as $250,000.00

    They can set it anywhere they want

    Whose left to pay?

    That timely warning just told the wealthy to put their wealth somewhere else.

    One of the ways the rich folks of the left like Pelosi whose in the top 1% of the one percent,

    Last I heard of her she was bitching about the property tax bill her party has installed in California. $84,000 or something.

    Whatever it is do they really think we should gasp in aw and say ‘we believe you?

    Go look at the history of income tax. Top 5% paying no more than five percent or some such story. Ten years later it was maximum of 95%. Except there was no money to tax.

    They can afford to get away with outright theft.

    We can’t

    We can’t afford the socialist party any more, we couldn’t back when and we can’t in the future.

    Not like they are real citizens anyway.. So vote them into office In Our Country,

    Which by the way is not a Democracy and never has been a Democracy.

    Bight, ME

    That’s my adderess.

    1. Michael A – I am soooo glad I am poor. However, I am not poor enough to qualify for government hand-outs.

  3. Why do democrats treat taxes as punishment for success? Today, taxes are separated from government income (and spending). None of the rich taxes have any effect on the taxes anyone else pays.

    1. “Why do democrats treat taxes as punishment for success?”

      Y’know. In a strange kind of way, I sort of welcome this from DeBlasio. Though I don’t really agree with him, he’s at least talking like a normal, traditional democrat, instead of like a creepy identitarian weirdo. I mean, yeah, he does that identitarian crap also, but he’s not doing it at this particular moment.

      I very much prefer redistribution schemes of the traditional sort over reparations.

      1. I mean, yeah, he does that identitarian crap also, but he’s not doing it at this particular moment.

        Hmm? John Wayne Gacy was Well-liked in his community, Gacy organized cultural gatherings and was active in political organizations and the Jaycees civic group. He was married and divorced twice and had two biological children (in addition to two stepdaughters).

        Just trying to keep it real.

      2. Check-out who he’s appointed schools chancellor in New York. diBlabbio is the echt creepy identitarian weirdo.

      3. He appointed Richard Carranza to the position of schools chancellor. Both Carranza and diBlabbio are the echt identitarian weirdos.

  4. How about all laws applying to all equally. End the discriminatory tax code and the class warfare and have true fairness.

  5. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-income-tax-in-1913-a-way-to-soak-the-rich
    The candidates who are behind the Medicare for all proposal are dreaming if they actually think that “soaking the rich” or “taxing the hell out of the wealthy” will fund a $40 Trillion entitlement program.
    “Soaking the Rich” as a selling point is a scam. The Amendment establishing a Federal Income tax was popular as a soak the rich idea. That very rapidly became a “soak the middle class” reality.

  6. well then, Mr DeBlasio should be happy about the cap on federal deductions ( state tax) . More fed taxes being paid by wealthy in the country.

    1. Deb, unless DeBlasio is stupid, he knows that it’ll take a lot more than taxing the hell out of the wealthy to pay for the the massive additional government spending he supports.

      1. Actually, DeBlasio gives every indication of being very, very stupid. I don’t mean on this particular matter (which, as DeBlasio proposals is actually less insane than most), but rather just, you know, in general. He hates his own city’s police force and is a prancing, virtue-signalling doofus.

  7. You’re making an assertion about social processes, Peter. You need a theory and you need empirical support for that theory. ‘Inequality’ is a feature of any society more sophisticated than an agricultural village. Grisly political upheavals are not ordinary events, so presuming (and it is a presumption on your part) that one causes the other is nonsensical.

    The war and it’s conduct were conjoined in time to the Russian Revolution, so, yes, there’s a rebuttable presumption that a causal relationship existed there. “Peace, Land, Bread” and all that.

    You don’t even demonstrate that Tsarist Russia was a more ‘unequal’ society in material terms than any other place in Europe. It certainly did have a more disagreeable social and political order, but that’s a different matter. Given that hereditary subjection had been abolished in Russia (in two stages) and allodial rights over rustical land had been conferred on the peasantry (though I don’t the the title registration process was yet complete by 1914), it’s pretty odd to attribute political upheaval in 1917 to ‘inequality’.

    1. Tabby, even most of Western Europe adopted socialistic-leaning governments in the 20th Century. But Russia had much higher rates of inequality than the west. The Tsarist government was also more oppressive than any in the west.

      1. But Russia had much higher rates of inequality than the west.

        Again, what set of historical statistics are you consulting?

        The Tsarist government was also more oppressive than any in the west.

        FWIW, all European governments between 1789 and 1914 instituted incremental amendments to political processes which incorporated parliamentary institutions. There was hardly one exception, and Russia certainly was not an exception. People like Ralf Dahrendorf pissed away a mess of verbiage on Germany’s ‘authoritarianism’, but German institutions differed only modestly from British institutions and the constitutional states who fought World War I had far more in common with each other than did the combatants in the 2d World War or the Cold War. Russia was more illiberal than others and electoral institutions were more novel therein, but it wasn’t some sort of charnel house.

        Tabby, even most of Western Europe adopted socialistic-leaning governments in the 20th Century.

        Your point is irrelevant.

          1. let’s be realistic about the Reds. By that I mean the Russian Soviets. They didn’t reform land they just took it. they took it from more successful peasants and handed it over to soviets which were essentially committees run by local political thugs. these soviets tended to punish the formerly productive peasants at the behest of the more numerous unsuccessful ones and the net result eventually was awful famine.

            that’s the basic history of Bolshevik land reform, it’s basically stealing by the state

            the Tsarist system particularly after the land reforms that “Tabby” referred to, was most certainly a better system., more productive and more just for more people, than whatever disaster the Reds enacted which culminated in millions starving to death in Ukraine in the 30s formerly one of the most productive agricultural locations on Earth

    2. these are solid observations about Russian history but they require a certain level of education to appreciate. and to have received this information in the first place. most people are unawares of this.

      I remember when I learned them and it reversed the usual sort of thin, superficial indoctrination we receive in high school and primary school about the Reds’ takeover. I may have been in college. My source was not a professor rather an American, one of my friends from Harvard, who had lived in Russia for a year. Funny, huh? Must have been a Russian “robotnik” except there was no world wide web at the time.

      Respect diversity ! they say. Except when it’s not on the Democrat team. Then, they’re all spies!

  8. I like how Elizabeth Warren wants billionaires and large corporations to pay their fair share. She left out millionaires, because that would include her.

  9. INEQUALITY ADDED TO LIST OF ISSUES..

    REPUBLICANS MUST DENY

    Trump supporters, and viewers of Fox News, are advised that ‘Inequality’ is an issue to deny. Acknowledgement of Inequality muddies basic conservative talking points. If indeed Inequality exists, then tax cuts for the wealthy are perversely inappropriate.

    Acknowledgement of Inequality could lend political cover towards efforts to boost the Federal Minimum Wage. Such a move could sap corporate profits and executive compensation. Efforts to expand health coverage could also benefit from acknowledgement. But most ominously, acknowledgement could sabotage Republican plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Such a failure could then endanger future tax cuts.

    Therefore good conservatives must flatly deny that inequality is an issue of any kind in today’s America. Good conservative know that tax cuts and deregulation are the only economic policies approved by American Legislative Exchange (ALEX) and the Koch Brother Network of Political Donors.

    In addition to inequality, good conservatives are reminded to never acknowledge:

    Gun Violence

    Global Warming aka Climate Change

    Women’s Health Issues

    The Student Debt Bomb

    The Increasing Obsolescence Of Fossil Fuels

    America’s Crumbling Infrastructure

    Donald Trump’s Racist Tweets

    1. Regarding Above:

      Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about Inequality in America:

      U.S. income inequality has grown significantly since the early 1970s after several decades of stability and has been the subject of study of many scholars and institutions. The U.S. consistently exhibits higher rates of income inequality than most developed nations due to the nation’s enhanced support of free market capitalism and less progressive spending on social services.

      The top 1% of households received approximately 20% of the pre-tax income in 2013,[14] versus approximately 10% from 1950 to 1980. The top 1% is not homogeneous, with the very top income households pulling away from others in the top 1%. For example, the top 0.1% of households received approximately 10% of the pre-tax income in 2013, versus approximately 3–4% between 1951–1981. According to IRS data, adjusted gross income (AGI) of approximately $430,000 was required to be in the top 1% in 2013.

      Most of the growth in income inequality has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity widening the further one goes up in the income distribution.[33] The bottom 50% earned 20% of the nation’s pre-tax income in 1979; this fell steadily to 14% by 2007 and 13% by 2014. Income for the middle 40% group, a proxy for the middle class, fell from 45% in 1979 to 41% in both 2007 and 2014.

      To put this change into perspective, if the additional pre-tax income received by the top 1% in 2012 were redistributed to achieve the more egalitarian 1979 income distribution, these funds would be sufficient to give $11,000 more to each family in the bottom 80% ($916/month).[35] Alternatively, this figure would be $7,100 if the funds were redistributed to the bottom 99% of families ($600/month).

      The trend of rising income inequality is also apparent after taxes and transfers. A 2018 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)[37] found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by 242% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2015, compared to a gain of 46% for the 60 percent in the middle of America’s income distribution, and a gain of 79% for the lowest 20%.[37] U.S. federal tax and transfer policies are progressive and therefore substantially reduce income inequality measured after taxes and transfers. They became moderately less progressive between 1979 and 2007[6] but slightly more progressive measured between 1979 and 2011. Income transfers had a greater impact on reducing inequality than taxes from 1979 to 2011.

      CBO reported in November 2018 that all income groups significantly increased both their pre-tax and after-tax income from 1979 to 2015 in real terms (i.e., adjusted for inflation). For example, income after transfers and taxes was up 103% for the highest income quintile, 79% for the lowest income quintile, and 46% for the middle three quintiles measured together (21st to 80th percentiles). CBO also reported that the middle quintile (40th to 60th percentile) households, a proxy for the middle-class, earned an average of $58,500 in market income during 2015, representing a 12% share of the total market income. At the 1979 share of 16%, this figure would be $78,000 or $19,500 higher. After taxes and transfers, these middle-class households earned an average of $64,700, a 15% share. At the 1979 share of 16%, this figure would be $69,000 or $4,300 higher.

      Edited from: “Income Inequality In The United States

      Wikipedia

    2. I think rising wealth and income inequality is a valid social concern.

      I also think it is structural to our current economic system and not attributable to either party

      Inequality was rising during Obama’s 2 terms as well

      Socialism takes a look at inequality, but does not necessarily provide real solutions.

      Socialist regimes are famously inequal. Perhaps you recall George Orwell’s allegory Animal Farm:

      “some animals are more equal than others”

      In my mind, social inequality is inherent in the human condition and a feature of nearly every ordered society since the dawn of history.

      It’s kind of like greed. It is a problem, will always be a problem, and there is no sure thing to make it go away. Try and eradicate it and yuo will just create more suffering than you eliminate.

      This is probably a question of weltanschaung. Democrats seem to believe any social change can be forced with a sufficiently brutal law enacted and enough bureaucrats to police it.

      1. Kurtz, for the most part income inequality is merely a meaningless talking point on the left because many leftists believe that others should pay for their existence. The vast majority of wealth held by the very rich is invested in our industry and markets. It provides jobs, services and goods for those without that degree of wealth.

        That low income person today carries around a cell phone these same billionaires used just a couple of years ago. The leftists should look at the production capabilities of Russia and the living standard in Venezuela. It is ignorance that dominates their thinking processes.

        1. Alan, the poor in this country have electricity and running water. But they’re still poor. It’s the same thing with smart phones. In fact most jobs require some access to computers. Smart phones are no longer a luxury but a necessity.

          1. “Smart phones are no longer a luxury but a necessity.”

            For some people smart phones might be a necessity in some of today’s commerce, but mankind survived without them except for the past few years and the number that actually require a smart phone is awfully small. For lots of people certain tools are a necessity but not for everyone. The smart phone is a tool for a very few.. For you to suddenly make them a necessity when they are merely a convenience or a toy is ridiculous. In fact I am trying to think of one person in my entire family where smart phones would be a necessity and I can’t find a single one that couldn’t function without one, yet look at how many poor have smart phones.

            At the beginning of this century was the millionaire poor because he didn’t have a smart phone? Are you poor if you only have one bathroom? How many square feet of living space makes one poor? If one drives an old car, does that make them poor?

            You have odd ideas about “poorness” and these ideas corrupt the mind creating gaps in personal responsibility.

            1. Alan, even low-wage service jobs now require email and text capabilities to send employees their work schedules and, or, to ask them if they can report for extra hours.

              Pay phones have disappeared from the American landscape and using computers at the public library is totally inadequate. Smart phones have become a necessity for even Fast Food workers.

              If you don’t know these things, Alan, one can only presume you retired long ago.

              1. Before the smart phone we had cellphones and before that we had beepers and telephones.

                One has to be quite ignorant not to realize that smart phones are not a necessity of life. Employees can get their work schedules before they leave work. There is something wrong with your mind, but now at least we can see what type of nonsense drives your political ideology.

                  1. Age is not a criteria as a lot of 10 year olds demonstrate more knowledge and common sense than you have on this blog. So yes, Peter, my age is between 10 and 80+.

                    1. So you have no concept of how important smart phones are in today’s world.

                      For many people, the poor especially, smart phones have replaced hard-wired phones at home. And for many people, the poor especially, smart phones are their only computer.

                      In today’s world, even ‘applying’ for jobs is difficult to impossible without a computer of some kind.

                    2. “So you have no concept of how important smart phones are in today’s world.”

                      Peter there is a difference between a plain old cellular phone and a smart phone. Boy are you dense.

                    3. So yes, Peter, my age is between 10 and 80+.

                      Go easy on him/her, Allan. it’s difficult being a frustrated shill living in Hollywood, trolling for dollars while your peers are partying their azzes off on a Friday night

                      Peter, go hit some of the hot spots in WeHo tonight Try to play nice with the locals and if you’re lucky, maybe you’ll make a friend…. since everyone on Grindr has blocked you

  10. If part of somebody else’s income can be redistributed to me, maybe I won’t have to go to work. That would be like winning the lottery. I’ve got to find out who I will be voting for in the next election.

  11. There is a beautiful story about a black woman in Nashville that is a direct rebuke to the DNC & Bill De Blasio’s divide and conquer rhetoric. If you have not read it you should consider doing so. It is the story of what makes America great

    Excerpt follows

    Nashville’s Next Mayor May Be a Black Conservative Woman

    Carol Swain….as one of twelve children born in rural Virginia in 1954, growing up in a shack without running water. Her mother, a victim of infantile paralysis who never made it out of high school, was physically abused by her stepfather. Her own father ended his education at third grade. Carol herself, shoeless and unable to attend on snow days, did not finish high school either. She dropped out and married at sixteen to have three children, one of whom died of sudden infant death syndrome. Five years later, she was divorced and tried to commit suicide.

    But then everything slowly changed. In a remarkable bootstrap story she would likely ascribe to her faith, Swain earned her GED while working as a cashier at McDonald’s, then attended, in succession, Virginia Western Community College, Roanoke College (BA), Virginia Tech (MA), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (PhD) and Yale (MLS).

    But wait, as they say, there’s more. By 1990, at the age of 36, she was a professor of politics and public policy at Princeton for nine years to be followed by a similar position at Vanderbilt where she also taught law until she retired in 2017. Along the way she was the author and editor of eight books and had her scholarly work cited by two Associates Justices of the US Supreme Court.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/30/nashvilles_next_mayor_may_be_a_black_conservative_woman_140889.html

  12. On the Harold Stassen Native Son Presidential Candidate Scale, Bill de Blasio scores 11.9 out of a possible 10.

  13. What Turley is calling “class warfare” is properly called democracy.

    82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.

    66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.

    Most Americans Are Liberal, Even If They Don’t Know It
    https://prospect.org/article/most-americans-are-liberal-even-if-they-don%e2%80%99t-know-it

    1. Most Americans also think marital discord and backtalking children are a big problem. Doesn’t mean they want their homes placed in a trusteeship of social workers.

        1. 80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
          78 percent think some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
          76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
          60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.
          87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
          67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.

          1. Its all about ENVY, yyy. What people “think” is entirely shaped and manipulated. 80% for this, 70% for that. All 100% based on ignorance of facts.

        2. YYY:

          OK. Let’s say that you redistribute wealth from the rich, so that everyone makes the same. Obviously, there would be absolutely no point in working hard, going to college, or owning a company. Why? It’s going to be taken from you. Your income will be unequal to those who did not go to a trade school or college, did not work hard, did not show up on time. Those who dropped out of school are gong to make less than a neurosurgeon.

          If they start making the same as a neurosurgeon, then you are being punished for applying yourself. Whatever you earn, by your hard work, will be taken from you.

          Why bother?

          This is the reality behind the collapse of Socialist countries around the world.

          In a just system, you have the ability to improve your situation. Study hard, work hard, stay out of trouble, live better. Instead of boot strapping it, or personal responsibility, your efforts are now labeled “inequality.”

          There is equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome. They cannot both exist. To have equality of outcome you have to take opportunities away.

          Here is another example. To have equality of wages for women and men, across all careers, you would have to prohibit women from working part time, or quitting, in order to stay home with their families, as well as working in jobs that women often choose, such as elementary school teachers. You would then have to force men to work part time, stay home with their families, and work as elementary school teachers. Equality of opportunity means people are free to choose careers that they like. Equality of outcome means the government has to force people to engage in activities they don’t want to.

          1. No one is proposing that everyone earn the same amount. No one is proposing that everyone have the same amount of wealth. 82% of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” or “moderately big” problem. (Therefore) 66% of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly. Economic inequality has become too great, that’s all. It shouldn’t be so hard to acknowledge this. Proposals to reduce it shouldn’t be described as “class warfare.”

            1. “82% of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big”… due to being nudged into what to think. It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? Cream rises to the top. The rest is milk.

            2. yyy:
              This might be a fascinating subject if the issue hadn’t been decided once and for all time by the economic and then political collapse of Soviet Russia with its collectivist policies. As it is you’re just rehashing tired arguments and theoretical constructs that have been shredded by reality. Most Americans don’t want socialism but do want more equal distribution of capital until you tell them that means they have to pay for the lazy. Then the numbers change. Polls are meaningless because they don’t ask about reasoning only off the cuff conclusions. In truth, only elections matter.

            3. YYY:

              “No one is proposing that everyone earn the same amount.“ Actualy, yes they are, when they discuss closing the wage gap and income inequality.

              Otherwise, there will still be a gap and inequality.

              But let’s say politicians would allow some inequality, only not wealth. Wealth is created from business, which means you just removed the impetus to create an extremely successful business that impacts everyone’s lives, like Apple, IBM, etc. You may notice that Socialist countries never invent any major products, outside of military tech. They didn’t come up with laptops, smart phones, or a Zen alarm clock.

              I do acknowledge that income inequality exists, and breeds resentment, such as people feeling entitled to take money from those who earned it. One has only to view the homeless encampments or all the illegal immigrants arriving with the clothes on their backs to see extreme income inequality. That does not mean robber barons made them so.

              The solution from the Left is to seize and redistribute capital, punishing success. The solution from the right is to open up opportunities, and clear the way for success to more people.

              1. YYY:

                It is a kindness to want to help people who are struggling. The point I am trying to make is that it is more effective, just, and kind, to lift people up, rather than drag others down.

                Here are some of the drivers of income inequality:
                1. Too many public schools are notorious for graduating seniors who cannot read, or express themselves properly. They graduate with no skills and no prospects, doomed to be low wage earners.
                2. High levels of illegal immigrants strain benefits systems, as they often come with no skills or assets. While I am eager to help people, the reality is that so many poor coming in affects the calculus of our income inequality
                3. States hostile to business drive out employers, leaving behind low wage jobs
                4. Blight that takes over cities drive our employers
                5. The increasing rate of single motherhood. Statistically, single motherhood is a very high risk factor for the children to live in poverty, join a gang, drop out of school, do drugs, commit crimes, go to jail, and/or be murdered. As the rate goes higher, that means more people are on the lowest rungs
                6. Education in general needs to improve. Leftists took over the public education system, and phased our or diminished phonetics, resulting in around 60% of children not reading at age level. That affects their future earning potential. (https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read)
                7. Emphasis on college over trade schools. Universities do not seem to publish the earning potential of various degrees. Therefore, a student can go tens of thousands of dollars in debt for a degree in gender studies, or surf theory (yes, it exists), and find themselves unemployable. Meanwhile, many trades struggle to fill positions. Unless you’re rich and going to school for fun, degrees need to be stepping stones to careers, and an investment, rather than just fun classes to take as a hobby. Trade schools are a viable avenue, and should not be considered less than university. The entire country runs because of the trades. In a catastrophe, you don’t really need the academics and CPAs. You need people who can grow food, keep the lights on, and build shelters.

                There are many steps we can take to lift up those who are struggling, that do not entail punishing successful people. One of the problems that I have with a majority voting for the taxes of the minority, is that they will always vote for financial pain for others rather than themselves. One of the reasons why women got the vote is that they could not rely upon all male voters to vote for their own interests. They will be more prone to restrict other people than they would themselves.

                1. Karen S – is surf theory a course or a major? And if it is a course is it in the oceanography dept or p.e.? I have seen both basketball and football theory listed in p.e. courses.

          2. Karen, your first sentence is disingenuous. No serious liberal is advocating the same pay for everyone. It’s just a false talking point.

            1. No serious liberal is advocating the same pay for everyone. It’s just a false talking point.

              Hmmm? Okay. So Karen, you should conclude any liberal advocating the same pay is unserious. Good to know.

            2. “No serious liberal is advocating the same pay for everyone. It’s just a false talking point.”
              *************
              That’s all they advocate. They hate merit. See the women’s national soccer team who lose money, get paid more than their male counterparts but still get buffoons like the Squad to demand better pay for a gaggle of females that a good 15-year-old boys team would give a run for their balls.

            3. Hill:

              You are right that not everyone is advocating equal pay for everyone. The Democratic Socialists propose paying the most for the least enjoyable jobs. I suppose public toilet cleaner would be the highest paid job. Note that the pay would have zero to do with merit, skills, training.

              Please note that the following was taken from the Democratic Socialists website, a movement supported by many Democratic politicians. The premise is so shockingly ignorant, I am gravely concerned that people who actually believe this nonsense get elected to public office.

              People work out of a sense of responsibility to their community? No. That’s called volunteerism. Otherwise, people work to get paid, whether they are janitors or executives.

              https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

              “Won’t socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?
              We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy.”

              1. From the same website:

                “We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.”

                Note that in order for there to be no difference between the genders in jobs, women would have to be forced not to work part time, or quit to take care of children, or to go into fields they normally choose, like school teacher, and men would have to be forced to do the opposite.

                We already have laws against discrimination.

                Clearly, the Democratic Socialists oppose profit. That would include people profiting off of their own labor and ideas.

                Socialism is a form of slavery. It is ironic that societies sometimes vote to enslave themselves to the government, handing over their rights in exchange for government care. It fails every time it’s tried, and yet there are academics, politicians, and activists who believe it is a marvelous idea. They cannot differentiate between a utopia on paper, and a dystopia in reality.

                1. when it comes to these things, the socalled democratic socialists are operating in an ahistorical manner. socialism as it was implemented in Europe and Asia tried and failed with some of these things, and now has largely moved beyond them. for various reasons most of all is that the use of market mechanisms to set prices and allow for free enterprise and variable levels of income, stimulates human creativity and work.

                  and the society as a whole, needs human creativity and work.

                  this was perfectly clear to the most powerful and dogmatic group of socialists to ever hold real power, in China. who, once Mao and his last crazy wife and their other radicals of the Cultural Revolution were gone from power, immediately began experimenting with freeing people up to use market pricing mechanisms and so forth.

                  they called it “capitalism in a birdcage” or something like that, if i recall, because they wanted to contain it, and to harness its use to empower the naiton.

                  and yet we see them older socialist fantasies being trotted out here anew in America., it’s rather pathetic, in a way

        1. Inequality is not a threat to anyone. However, the perception that inequality is someone else’s fault, is a threat to capitalism. The gap between the two is where the socialists work their magic.

          1. Olly, you need to tell to the Romanov’s. Inequality led them to an unfortunate situation where they lost their throne and lives.

            1. Actually investing a great deal of blood and treasure in a war they were losing accomplished that, as it did for a couple-dozen other European monarchs in 1918.

              Looking forward to your production of income-distribution statistics for Tsarist Russia.

              1. So Tabby, we’re supposed to believe that income inequality had ‘nothing’ to do with the Russian Revolution? Like everything would have been fine had W W I not come along?

                1. Peter,
                  You started off by arguing Inequality led to… Now you’ve moved the goalposts to Income Inequality. For clarity purposes, what inequality are you specifically referring to and what is your definition for it?

        2. Inequality is inherent in the human social condition.

          We have a hard time with this as Americans because we operate under the delusion and blatant falsehood that “all men are created equal.” In actual fact, the opposite is true. That which is not the same, is not equal. If men are not the same then we can’t be equal.

          Nonetheless, it is a valid concern

          Capitalism has certain troubling features. One of them is another thing that has been around a lot longer than capitalism itself, and is not known in socialist regimes either, It is what Aristotle called “Sterile Money,” Ie, the accumulation of wealth through usury aka compound interest.

          It is a hazard, a problem, but one which will never go away. It can only be contained.

          JUst get over all your utopian inclinations and then life will be a heck of a lot easier.

          1. It is what Aristotle called “Sterile Money,” Ie, the accumulation of wealth through usury aka compound interest.

            Interest is the price of credit. There’s nothing inherently sterile about it.

            1. i’m aware of that interpretation and followed it for decades, when I was under the liberterian spell. over time I have come to see in a more traditional and skeptical manner.

              all market prices are composites of what a willing buyer and willing seller will demand

              interest rate prices are affected by money supply which is influenced greatly by government policy and action

              money is not a fixed quantum it is a variable measurement which is moving all the time

              traditional skepticism about the negative effects of compound interest, was a big part of the moderation applied by English and American legislatures on consumer credit, over centuries. then, in the mid seventies if I recall, the Supreme Court just wiped all the state based restrictions out in one fell swoop when they suddenly realized not unlike abortion that they were actually unconstitutional.

              a little noticed act of federal judicial superlegislating from the bench

              with an effect that consumer credit markets have been massively deregulated

              and we now have teenagers getting sucked into stupid credit cards that were a few decades back impossible to market in the way they are now. this is bad for all of us, unless of course we work directly in consumer credit, in which case it’s just peachy keen

          2. We have a hard time with this as Americans because we operate under the delusion and blatant falsehood that “all men are created equal.”

            Not hard at all; context matters. Jefferson qualified that statement with, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, These are self-evident truths for all people, everywhere and for all time. It’s best described as a vision statement for humanity. Realizing that vision would be perfection. Believing that vision would ever be realized is delusional. Our constitution was created for the purpose of realizing that vision; to become more perfect.

            The real delusion that Americans have today and one that politicians blatantly deceive the citizens on is the idea that human nature has improved over time. Worse yet is the idea that certain credentials, characteristics, experience and so on are the attributes of a better nature. Politicians then use the gullibility of the average American to divide us. Most Americans have no idea the constitution is a check on that unchangeable human nature. This ignorance leads to apathy. This ignorance leads people to even argue against the idea they have unalienable rights.

            Now who could have predicted that?

        3. Hill:

          “Inequality is actually a bigger threat to capitalism than socialism.” I disagree. Inequality is feedback on your own actions. Drop out of school, make less money. Go to a university and get a degree that is marketable, make more money. Engage in crime or do drugs, make less money. Be responsible, make more money. Go to a trade school and learn a trade, work hard, and do high quality work, make more money. Drift from job to job, constantly quitting or getting fired because you are unreliable, bored, or hate authority, make less money.

          Without that feedback, you are powerless to affect the success of your own life.

          That said, sometimes the piano of fate squashes you. We have systems in place to help you, and those programs could certainly be improved.

    2. YYY:

      If 10% of students earn As, and 90% of students do not, the 90% can vote to take grade points away from those who earned an A. Then, everyone would get a C. There would be no point in studying at all, so students would do the work of an F.

      Of course if you asked someone if you would like some guy to give you his money, they are going to say yes.

      1. Of course if you asked someone if you would like some guy to give you his money, they are going to say yes.

        A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw

        1. Well it depends on what you mean by it. Did you earn it or not? That doesn’t mean everybody should make the same amount. Systemic inequality, involving wealthy people who don’t really do much, is a problem as old as the scriptures. And even Adam Smith himself was worried about it. Capitalism can devolve into Oligarchy. In the Old Testament, the solution was the year of Jubilee. But I think we’re too large of a society for that. So I’m open to suggestions.

        2. Alan. During the postwar era we had our lowest levels of inequality. Postwar prosperity had a lot to do with that. But there was a different attitude then among the ruling class.

          The generation that grew up during the Depression and World War II felt a sense of common interest. A sense that “We’re all in this together”. But then in 1980’s that sense of common interest was replaced by “I got mine, you get yours”.

          1. Peter, you only believe that garbage because the Forbes list didn’t come out until the early 1980’s. Just think of the Rockerfeller and Mellon families. There are numerous others.

            You should be looking at the time frame for goods created by mass marketing. Think of refrigerators, air conditioning, cell phones, indoor plumbing, electric ranges and the like. Look in the past and see the lack of amenities owned by the poor.

            1. There actually is data to indicate there’s been ebb and flow over the last three generations in the degree to which income and assets have a skew distribution. Where Peter is being silly is

              1. Pretending he has a secure understanding of why you have these patterns when economic historians have disputes over how to interpret them and

              2. Pretending they have much social significance. In 1972, about 25% of all personal income adhered to the most affluent decile. Now it’s 30%. Is that‘s what’s supposed to be distorting and disfiguring our lives?

              1. I don’t think you meant that ebb and flow ended what has always existed, income inequality. To put it another way income inequality has ebbs and flows but has always existed.

    3. Most people see the weather as a problem, too, but those who think they can influence rainfall and hurricanes by passing laws are fools, no matter how many of them talk to pollsters.

    4. You’re right; it IS Democracy, which is why I’m very pleased that we don’t live in one. We have a constitutional republic, a form of government designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. ‘Redistribution’ of the wealth is stealing when I do it to my neighbor’s lawn mower, and it’s still stealing if all the neighbors get together and decide to ‘redistribute’ it for ‘the good of the community.’
      Democracy has been described(Ben Franklin) as two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. A sheep who comes out of that vote only missing his wool (shorn to sell to provide meat for the wolves) could consider himself lucky…except the wolves always come back for more. Always.

      1. jane surber – You’re right. Now all you have to do is show where the constitution specifies a maximum tax rate.

        “In 1944-45, ‘the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,’ the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation). The US had a top rate that exceeded 90 percent through the 1950s and early 60s and a 70 percent top tax rate from 1971 through 1980.”

    5. Most Americans Are Liberal, Even If They Don’t Know It

      Your link goes to an article published in 2017 by the American Prospect.

      When i saw in the “about us” page, the name Robert Reich as one of the founders, I stopped reading and rolled my eyes. Robert Reich is a communist.

      In the words of our entertaining minion and paid troll Peter Shill, “seriously? is that your source?!”

      get real

      https://prospect.org/about-us
      The American Prospect’s mission is summed up in the phrase “liberal intelligence” that runs under the logo on the magazine’s cover. We aim to advance liberal and progressive goals through reporting, analysis, and debate about today’s realities and tomorrow’s possibilities.

      Founded in 1990 by Robert Kuttner, Paul Starr, and Robert Reich

      1. Every stat in the American Prospect article links to a survey. The article is based on at least three: by Pew Research, Washington Post/ABC News, and NY Times/CBS. Those surveys are the source of the data I’ve posted.

  14. What Turley is calling “class warfare” is properly called democracy.

    82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.

    66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.

    Most Americans Are Liberal, Even If They Don’t Know It

Leave a Reply