Not in the way you're describing. Since Obamacare will stay in place, Medicaid will be extended up to 133% of the poverty line. So I don't understand who the thousands dieing of no healthcare are that you were referencing when calling me a monster.
How is Medicaid going up while being cut? If they are going to cut it, then how does it go up, because the health care act as I understand it only has a certain amount of money funding it (and I'll eat my hat if it actually does what it says it does by the time 2014 rolls around)
Also you reacted with glee at Ryan's plan which more or less destroys millions of people's lives.
I do apologize for being hyperbolic and it was uncalled for to call you a monster (because I can only assume you aren't one despite your pleasure centers being aroused by the poor getting fucked), I get angry when i see people cheer people signing away my job and future with a pen stroke while much of our tax money goes to being shit into the desert and the tax rate on the rich is verboten.
How's this? Ryan's plan is nonsense and will never happen. I'm cheerful that it's moving the conversation in the right direction. That's all.
Except that Reaganomics 2.0 is not anywhere close to the right direction.
Mainly because it failed, miserably, the first time it was tried.
Edit: I am also bemused that the new GOP method of "reforming" entitlement programs is to basically turn them into handing giant bags of cash, oversight-free, to state governments.
Because you know, that worked out so well in Iraq.
How's this? Ryan's plan is nonsense and will never happen. I'm cheerful that it's moving the conversation in the right direction. That's all.
Except it's not. It's moving the conversation towards bullshit like cutting taxes raising revenue and the government needs heavy slashing or we'll all go bankrupt and ultimately perpetuating the kinds of terrible "deficit hawk" economic thinking that is what is the root cause of the US governments inability to do anything about it's fiscal issues.
Both the Simpson/Bowles plan and Ryan's fantasy garbage are about regressive tax realignments and sweet deals for corporations while cutting services.
How's this? Ryan's plan is nonsense and will never happen. I'm cheerful that it's moving the conversation in the right direction. That's all.
It's not the right direction when what we really need to see is more taxes on the rich and more spending on social services. And of course a fix to Medicare.
The only point of agreement I have with Ryan is that health care costs need to be addressed.
It stops there though, because we can't know for sure what Obama's healthcare plan is going to do to those. The US isn't going to default in 2 years, what's the rush
How's this? Ryan's plan is nonsense and will never happen. I'm cheerful that it's moving the conversation in the right direction. That's all.
Except that Reaganomics 2.0 is not anywhere close to the right direction.
Mainly because it failed, miserably, the first time it was tried.
Edit: I am also bemused that the new GOP method of "reforming" entitlement programs is to basically turn them into handing giant bags of cash, oversight-free, to state governments.
Because you know, that worked out so well in Iraq.
enc0re, do you subscribe to the school of thought that tax cuts increase revenue?
What? Hell no. To be more specific: they won't at current rates. Obviously if you were cutting rates from 95% to 85% there would be an increase.
I do however want to see more taxes on the middle class and working class. The U.S. tax system is too progressive for my taste. A VAT would accomplish that nicely.
enc0re, do you subscribe to the school of thought that tax cuts increase revenue?
What? Hell no. To be more specific: they won't at current rates. Obviously if you were cutting rates from 95% to 85% there would be an increase.
I do however want to see more taxes on the middle class and poor. The U.S. tax system is too progressive for my taste. A VAT would accomplish that nicely.
Wait What? Too progressive?
Like as in I pay more of my income in taxes than Warren Buffett too progressive?
enc0re, do you subscribe to the school of thought that tax cuts increase revenue?
What? Hell no. To be more specific: they won't at current rates. Obviously if you were cutting rates from 95% to 85% there would be an increase.
I do however want to see more taxes on the middle class and poor. The U.S. tax system is too progressive for my taste. A VAT would accomplish that nicely.
How did you arrive at this determination? What factors do you use to decide what percentage of revenue should come from where?
Like as in I pay more of my income in taxes than Warren Buffett too progressive?
I agree with you and Buffett that capital gains and dividends should be subject to the same rates as 'earned income.' Of course that raises the double taxation of equity finance as opposed to debt finance problem. So while we're at it I would want to use a VAT to eliminate the corporate income tax. And payroll taxes, but that's for a different reason.
I do however want to see more taxes on the middle class and poor. The U.S. tax system is too progressive for my taste. A VAT would accomplish that nicely.
:shock:
What? Seriously?
EDIT: Oh... you are a "double taxation" person. That explains things.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Taxing the poor doesn't really do anything at all and it hurts them a fuckton. An additional $80 out of your $800 paycheck could mean the difference between making rent or not
Taxing the middle class: Totally with you there, actually. Revenue mostly comes from the middle class. We need higher taxes on the rich to put the breaks on the transfer of wealth upwards though, otherwise more taxes on the middle class is meaningless because you're just setting yourself up for not having a middle class faster.
But this is all besides the point, we shouldn't be touching social services or taking one penny from anyone who doesn't own 3 cars or a yacht until we end the ridiculous wars. Our priorities are mixed up as fuck. I believe our tax policy should at this time be geared towards increasing revenue and decreasing the percentage of GDP that goes to the very top.
How did you arrive at this determination? What factors do you use to decide what percentage of revenue should come from where?
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me on this. Show your work if you want to criticize mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
Taxing the poor doesn't really do anything at all and it hurts them a fuckton. An additional $80 out of your $800 paycheck could mean the difference between making rent or not
Taxing the middle class: Totally with you there, actually. Revenue mostly comes from the middle class. We need higher taxes on the rich to put the breaks on the transfer of wealth upwards though, otherwise more taxes on the middle class is meaningless because you're just setting yourself up for not having a middle class faster.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said 'poor.' That was asinine. I meant middle class and working class.
Regardless, I honestly don't think we should make any serious overhauls to anything until we see how the health care law plays out, it's going to probably cause a lot of movement one way or the other just because of its scope - I think we should just pretty much carry on until then as far as taxes are concerned (with bush cuts on everyone being put to bed, of course)
How did you arrive at this determination? What factors do you use to decide what percentage of revenue should come from where?
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me. Show your work if you want to hammer mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
1. The bottom 40% of earners also hold less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
2. [citation required]
How did you arrive at this determination? What factors do you use to decide what percentage of revenue should come from where?
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me on this. Show your work if you want to criticize mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
Those numbers are incorrect, they make bad assumptions.
edit: specifically they record as tax exempt income income that poor people get due to govt actions, but do not record as tax exempt income income that wealthier people get due to govt actions.
Logically, if we are recording incidences of income (which is not easy to do) then treating income from two groups that comes from the same source differently will ruin our numbers
Goumindong on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Like as in I pay more of my income in taxes than Warren Buffett too progressive?
I agree with you and Buffett that capital gains and dividends should be subject to the same rates as 'earned income.' Of course that raises the double taxation of equity finance as opposed to debt finance problem. So while we're at it I would want to use a VAT to eliminate the corporate income tax. And payroll taxes, but that's for a different reason.
Many corporations don't pay taxes even with a corporate tax rate.
EDIT: Oh... you are a "double taxation" person. That explains things.
I take it you don't understand how taxing equity finance twice as often as debt finance encourages overleveraging?
Leverage is endogenous to the business cycle. The only way to prevent overleverage is to specifically limit it. Else it does not matter what you do, businesses will be overleveraged in boomtimes and underleveraged in busts.
This is the process which creates recessions. (specifically it has to do with the under supply of safe financial aspects causing slack demand)
Ergo it does not matter much where the tax falls when you're operating under necessary leverage ceilings.
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me. Show your work if you want to hammer mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
1. The bottom 40% of earners also hold less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
2. [citation required]
1. We tax income, not wealth. If you want to do wealth taxation, that's it's own whole topic. Oh, and enjoy destroying capital formation.
2. Will provide as soon as you show your work. No fair having criticism be unidirectional.
Leverage is endogenous to the business cycle. The only way to prevent overleverage is to specifically limit it.
I'm not saying abolishing the double taxation of equity finance will eliminate overleverage. Just that we sholdn't shouldn't encourage it even more through the tax code.
Many corporations don't pay taxes even with a corporate tax rate.
One of the reasons I want to see it eliminated. It introduces too many arbitrary distortions and too much waste on tax avoidance. Plus, if we ditch it we can tax 'unearned income' at the same rate as 'earned income' while also eliminating the double taxation of equity finance problem.
Also, it would remove the barrier to repatriating profits, work towards eliminating our structural external imbalances, and make the U.S. super attractive for investment.
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me. Show your work if you want to hammer mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
1. The bottom 40% of earners also hold less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
2. [citation required]
1. We tax income, not wealth. If you want to do wealth taxation, that's it's own whole topic. Oh, and enjoy destroying capital formation.
2. Will provide as soon as you show your work. No fair having criticism be unidirectional.
OECD Income Survey
Actually, we do tax wealth, just not at the federal level.
And based upon your argument, you could also argue that our current system will ruin capitalism, because it makes it so that no one will ever want to work; you can get all of your income tax-free just by making it through capital gains. Strangely, not everyone has quit working, yet.
Many corporations don't pay taxes even with a corporate tax rate.
One of the reasons I want to see it eliminated. It introduces too many arbitrary distortions and too much waste on tax avoidance. Plus, if we ditch it we can tax 'unearned income' at the same rate as 'earned income' while also eliminating the double taxation of equity finance problem.
Also, it would remove the barrier to repatriating profits, work towards eliminating our structural external imbalances, and make the U.S. super attractive for investment.
Win, win, win, win, win, win!
Also, allow the wealthy to incorporate themselves, and avoid paying any taxes whatsoever, ever!
I'm not sure the answer to corporations breaking the law is to remove the law.
Since when?
Doesn't the FCC bump the maximum amount of a media market a single entity can own to the most of a market a single entity owns every year? Why should this be any different?
How did you arrive at this determination? What factors do you use to decide what percentage of revenue should come from where?
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me on this. Show your work if you want to criticize mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
The US has structural deficit issues from it's current tax setup. Why do you want to raise taxes on people who have less income and more need for the income they have, instead of from the people with more income and who will notice an increase in tax less?
Well, before we dogpile enc0re here, are we to assume that "middle class" includes the same "middle class" who are making $100,000-250,000+ per year?
'Cause if that's "middle and working class" then I agree that we should tax them (well, and tax the ever loving shit out of the millionaires and billionaires, but for whatever reason you US folks seem to like putting all your money in one place? Perhaps so it's harder to lose it? 'Where'd all the hundred dollar bills go? Oh, Bill and Donald have them, okay, that's cool'*)
Which isn't to say that those making 100-250k can't be struggling either, but the words "middle class" have been bent to the breaking point in some of these articles and discussions.
*: Note, I am aware that Mr. Gates makes enourmous charitable contributions, and I believe has stated he would be fine paying a higher tax rate than he does, it was just a name that sprung to mind in terms of "Americans who own a whole pile of shit and assets".
Edit: why is whenever people (particularly conservatives/republicans) want to note how hard it is to survive on six figures they're all "middle class", and then when it comes time to tax the shit out of the "middle class" it's all people making like 25-50k/year... wait, I think I just answered my own question.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I'm not sure the answer to corporations breaking the law is to remove the law.
Since when?
Doesn't the FCC bump the maximum amount of a media market a single entity can own to the most of a market a single entity owns every year? Why should this be any different?
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me. Show your work if you want to hammer mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
1. The bottom 40% of earners also hold less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
2. [citation required]
1. We tax income, not wealth. If you want to do wealth taxation, that's it's own whole topic. Oh, and enjoy destroying capital formation.
2. Will provide as soon as you show your work. No fair having criticism be unidirectional.
OECD Income Survey
a) The rich can actually afford to pay a lot more; the middle class, too, but to a lesser extent (and I believe currently they carry too much of the burden)
b) The rich see vastly more benefit from our government the way it is set up now than the working class or middle class, and thus should pay proportionally more.
We don't tax wealth, but we can look at wealth distribution as an indicator of problems in our tax structure that need to be improved. It is a big fucking problem that the top 1% have basically all the money in the country. They are getting rich off the backs of the working and middle class, and we should adjust it so that it is not quite so automatic as it is now.
Well, before we dogpile enc0re here, are we to assume that "middle class" includes the same "middle class" who are making $100,000-250,000+ per year?
'Cause if that's "middle and working class" then I agree that we should tax them (well, and tax the ever loving shit out of the millionaires and billionaires, but for whatever reason you US folks seem to like putting all your money in one place? Perhaps so it's harder to lose it? 'Where'd all the hundred dollar bills go? Oh, Bill and Donald have them, okay, that's cool'*)
Which isn't to say that those making 100-250k can't be struggling either, but the words "middle class" have been bent to the breaking point in some of these articles and discussions.
*: Note, I am aware that Mr. Gates makes enourmous charitable contributions, and I believe has stated he would be fine paying a higher tax rate than he does, it was just a name that sprung to mind in terms of "Americans who own a whole pile of shit and assets".
Edit: why is whenever people (particularly conservatives/republicans) want to note how hard it is to survive on six figures they're all "middle class", and then when it comes time to tax the shit out of the "middle class" it's all people making like 25-50k/year... wait, I think I just answered my own question.
We can assume he means people much less then that because he didn't just say middle class, he also said "poor" or "working class".
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
Well, before we dogpile enc0re here, are we to assume that "middle class" includes the same "middle class" who are making $100,000-250,000+ per year?
'Cause if that's "middle and working class" then I agree that we should tax them (well, and tax the ever loving shit out of the millionaires and billionaires, but for whatever reason you US folks seem to like putting all your money in one place? Perhaps so it's harder to lose it? 'Where'd all the hundred dollar bills go? Oh, Bill and Donald have them, okay, that's cool'*)
I mean them in the social science, Weberian way. So working class are those that derive most or all of their income from employment following orders. Factory workers, office personnel, and on the low end retail employees. Middle class refers to the group in between the working class and the rich. They still earn incomes, but the incomes are high enough and their jobs professional enough that they enjoy substantial socio political autonomy. The middle class includes lawyers, medical doctors, professors, etc.
Middle class isn't about income per se; but $100K+ is not a bad rule of thumb.
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
Except he's not being "dogpilled" for that. What people took issue with was:
1) his belief that middle and lower class people should pay more taxes because the US tax system is "too progressive"
2) his statement that the Ryan budget was "taking the conversation in the right direction"
3) his general love of the bullshit and regressive Simpson/Bowles plan
Enc0re, are you happy that for the last few decades, the USA has seen a huge GDP growth, has seen enormous profits in it's big companies, and wealth growth at it's top 10%, and enormous wealth growth at it's top 1% of income, but that very little if any of that has reached anyone in the bottom half of the scale?
Because that is the main reason that I would advocate that the total taxation system in the USA is not progressive enough. The a rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The median worker is more or less stagnant for decades. And only governments can really alter that pattern.
I can afford to pay more in taxes. A 5% bump in marginal rates, to me, would mean a smaller television. I'd survive.
As long as the marginal rates above mine are seeing the same bump, I'm down. It's precisely why I was all for letting the tax cuts expire. Pretty much anybody who winds up with a net tax liability at the end of the year can afford it.
Posts
How is Medicaid going up while being cut? If they are going to cut it, then how does it go up, because the health care act as I understand it only has a certain amount of money funding it (and I'll eat my hat if it actually does what it says it does by the time 2014 rolls around)
Also you reacted with glee at Ryan's plan which more or less destroys millions of people's lives.
I do apologize for being hyperbolic and it was uncalled for to call you a monster (because I can only assume you aren't one despite your pleasure centers being aroused by the poor getting fucked), I get angry when i see people cheer people signing away my job and future with a pen stroke while much of our tax money goes to being shit into the desert and the tax rate on the rich is verboten.
Except that Reaganomics 2.0 is not anywhere close to the right direction.
Mainly because it failed, miserably, the first time it was tried.
Edit: I am also bemused that the new GOP method of "reforming" entitlement programs is to basically turn them into handing giant bags of cash, oversight-free, to state governments.
Because you know, that worked out so well in Iraq.
Except it's not. It's moving the conversation towards bullshit like cutting taxes raising revenue and the government needs heavy slashing or we'll all go bankrupt and ultimately perpetuating the kinds of terrible "deficit hawk" economic thinking that is what is the root cause of the US governments inability to do anything about it's fiscal issues.
Both the Simpson/Bowles plan and Ryan's fantasy garbage are about regressive tax realignments and sweet deals for corporations while cutting services.
It's not the right direction when what we really need to see is more taxes on the rich and more spending on social services. And of course a fix to Medicare.
It stops there though, because we can't know for sure what Obama's healthcare plan is going to do to those. The US isn't going to default in 2 years, what's the rush
Reaganomics 2.0 was Dubya.
What? Hell no. To be more specific: they won't at current rates. Obviously if you were cutting rates from 95% to 85% there would be an increase.
I do however want to see more taxes on the middle class and working class. The U.S. tax system is too progressive for my taste. A VAT would accomplish that nicely.
Wait What? Too progressive?
Like as in I pay more of my income in taxes than Warren Buffett too progressive?
How did you arrive at this determination? What factors do you use to decide what percentage of revenue should come from where?
I agree with you and Buffett that capital gains and dividends should be subject to the same rates as 'earned income.' Of course that raises the double taxation of equity finance as opposed to debt finance problem. So while we're at it I would want to use a VAT to eliminate the corporate income tax. And payroll taxes, but that's for a different reason.
:shock:
What? Seriously?
EDIT: Oh... you are a "double taxation" person. That explains things.
Taxing the middle class: Totally with you there, actually. Revenue mostly comes from the middle class. We need higher taxes on the rich to put the breaks on the transfer of wealth upwards though, otherwise more taxes on the middle class is meaningless because you're just setting yourself up for not having a middle class faster.
But this is all besides the point, we shouldn't be touching social services or taking one penny from anyone who doesn't own 3 cars or a yacht until we end the ridiculous wars. Our priorities are mixed up as fuck. I believe our tax policy should at this time be geared towards increasing revenue and decreasing the percentage of GDP that goes to the very top.
Right back at you. That goes for anyone who disagrees with me on this. Show your work if you want to criticize mine.
Here are my reasons:
1. The bottom 40% of earners pay only 5% of Federal taxes. And they pay less than no Federal income taxes.
2. The US has the most progressive income tax system of any developed country.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said 'poor.' That was asinine. I meant middle class and working class.
I take it you don't understand how taxing equity finance twice as often as debt finance encourages overleveraging?
1. The bottom 40% of earners also hold less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
2. [citation required]
Those numbers are incorrect, they make bad assumptions.
edit: specifically they record as tax exempt income income that poor people get due to govt actions, but do not record as tax exempt income income that wealthier people get due to govt actions.
Logically, if we are recording incidences of income (which is not easy to do) then treating income from two groups that comes from the same source differently will ruin our numbers
Many corporations don't pay taxes even with a corporate tax rate.
Leverage is endogenous to the business cycle. The only way to prevent overleverage is to specifically limit it. Else it does not matter what you do, businesses will be overleveraged in boomtimes and underleveraged in busts.
This is the process which creates recessions. (specifically it has to do with the under supply of safe financial aspects causing slack demand)
Ergo it does not matter much where the tax falls when you're operating under necessary leverage ceilings.
1. We tax income, not wealth. If you want to do wealth taxation, that's it's own whole topic. Oh, and enjoy destroying capital formation.
2. Will provide as soon as you show your work. No fair having criticism be unidirectional.
I'm not saying abolishing the double taxation of equity finance will eliminate overleverage. Just that we sholdn't shouldn't encourage it even more through the tax code.
One of the reasons I want to see it eliminated. It introduces too many arbitrary distortions and too much waste on tax avoidance. Plus, if we ditch it we can tax 'unearned income' at the same rate as 'earned income' while also eliminating the double taxation of equity finance problem.
Also, it would remove the barrier to repatriating profits, work towards eliminating our structural external imbalances, and make the U.S. super attractive for investment.
Win, win, win, win, win, win!
And based upon your argument, you could also argue that our current system will ruin capitalism, because it makes it so that no one will ever want to work; you can get all of your income tax-free just by making it through capital gains. Strangely, not everyone has quit working, yet.
Even more win!
Doesn't the FCC bump the maximum amount of a media market a single entity can own to the most of a market a single entity owns every year? Why should this be any different?
The US has structural deficit issues from it's current tax setup. Why do you want to raise taxes on people who have less income and more need for the income they have, instead of from the people with more income and who will notice an increase in tax less?
'Cause if that's "middle and working class" then I agree that we should tax them (well, and tax the ever loving shit out of the millionaires and billionaires, but for whatever reason you US folks seem to like putting all your money in one place? Perhaps so it's harder to lose it? 'Where'd all the hundred dollar bills go? Oh, Bill and Donald have them, okay, that's cool'*)
Which isn't to say that those making 100-250k can't be struggling either, but the words "middle class" have been bent to the breaking point in some of these articles and discussions.
*: Note, I am aware that Mr. Gates makes enourmous charitable contributions, and I believe has stated he would be fine paying a higher tax rate than he does, it was just a name that sprung to mind in terms of "Americans who own a whole pile of shit and assets".
Edit: why is whenever people (particularly conservatives/republicans) want to note how hard it is to survive on six figures they're all "middle class", and then when it comes time to tax the shit out of the "middle class" it's all people making like 25-50k/year... wait, I think I just answered my own question.
hmm? I'm not sure I follow what your point is.
a) The rich can actually afford to pay a lot more; the middle class, too, but to a lesser extent (and I believe currently they carry too much of the burden)
b) The rich see vastly more benefit from our government the way it is set up now than the working class or middle class, and thus should pay proportionally more.
We don't tax wealth, but we can look at wealth distribution as an indicator of problems in our tax structure that need to be improved. It is a big fucking problem that the top 1% have basically all the money in the country. They are getting rich off the backs of the working and middle class, and we should adjust it so that it is not quite so automatic as it is now.
We can assume he means people much less then that because he didn't just say middle class, he also said "poor" or "working class".
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
We shouldn't dogpile on enc0re here because he has the balls to suggest that we take an intelligent look at our tax structure and have a discussion about how it should be adjusted, using facts and reason instead of buzzwords. This is precisely what's missing from the modern GOP and it would be wonderful if it could come back.
I mean them in the social science, Weberian way. So working class are those that derive most or all of their income from employment following orders. Factory workers, office personnel, and on the low end retail employees. Middle class refers to the group in between the working class and the rich. They still earn incomes, but the incomes are high enough and their jobs professional enough that they enjoy substantial socio political autonomy. The middle class includes lawyers, medical doctors, professors, etc.
Middle class isn't about income per se; but $100K+ is not a bad rule of thumb.
Except he's not being "dogpilled" for that. What people took issue with was:
1) his belief that middle and lower class people should pay more taxes because the US tax system is "too progressive"
2) his statement that the Ryan budget was "taking the conversation in the right direction"
3) his general love of the bullshit and regressive Simpson/Bowles plan
Because that is the main reason that I would advocate that the total taxation system in the USA is not progressive enough. The a rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The median worker is more or less stagnant for decades. And only governments can really alter that pattern.
I can afford to pay more in taxes. A 5% bump in marginal rates, to me, would mean a smaller television. I'd survive.
As long as the marginal rates above mine are seeing the same bump, I'm down. It's precisely why I was all for letting the tax cuts expire. Pretty much anybody who winds up with a net tax liability at the end of the year can afford it.