3 ms·

> What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. It's not a zero

> What gets me is the job holders in the upper 20% who actively support a system that benefits the non-working (or don't need to work) top 1%. It's not a zero sum game. Just because the 1% benefit from a particular policy, it doesn't mean other non-1% people supporting it don't benefit as well.

and0 9y ago
In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  > In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. If I benefit from something, it doesn't bother me at all that someone benefits even more. Should I forfeit my benefits out of spite? > What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people. Maybe people feel it's fair to get to pass your wealth onto your children and that if they were rich they would support this idea. There's something to be said about sticking to your moral values and not being a hypocrite especially when what is being debated is having the state take a private citizen's money away from them.
  - and0 9y ago
    The choice isn't between no benefits and the status quo for lower classes / income brackets. It's about lower classes getting a bigger piece of the pie. You're acting as though questioning how resources are divided among a populace, which is almost entirely what politics is, is irrational or pointless, as though we've arrived to the current state of things via some other perfect, entirely natural process that we're foolish to tamper with.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      I'm giving you insight into why people disagree with you. I think if you actually look at it from their point of view it makes sense as it's logical and/or consistent with their morals. A lot of people just aren't that bothered that choosing an option that benefits them also benefits the 1% (often even more so).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
blackbagboys 9y ago
The "1%" might be an overly broad bracket (it's catchier than "the parasite rentier class"), but there are plenty of people in that category who actively support policies that not only don't benefit the vast majority of the population, but actively, physically harm them. See, for instance, every top health insurance executive in the country.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  The argument the OP was making isn't about the 1% alone, it's about policies that benefit the 1% and the top 20%.

and0 9y ago

In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people.

malvosenior 9y ago
> In some cases they might benefit from the same policies, but usually disproportionately so. If I benefit from something, it doesn't bother me at all that someone benefits even more. Should I forfeit my benefits out of spite? > What was labelled the "death tax", which somehow became a grassroots issue, was taxes on inheritance over roughly 5 million. It's now doubled to 11 million with the new tax bill. This is not in the interest of well over 99% of people. Maybe people feel it's fair to get to pass your wealth onto your children and that if they were rich they would support this idea. There's something to be said about sticking to your moral values and not being a hypocrite especially when what is being debated is having the state take a private citizen's money away from them.
- and0 9y ago
  The choice isn't between no benefits and the status quo for lower classes / income brackets. It's about lower classes getting a bigger piece of the pie. You're acting as though questioning how resources are divided among a populace, which is almost entirely what politics is, is irrational or pointless, as though we've arrived to the current state of things via some other perfect, entirely natural process that we're foolish to tamper with.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    I'm giving you insight into why people disagree with you. I think if you actually look at it from their point of view it makes sense as it's logical and/or consistent with their morals. A lot of people just aren't that bothered that choosing an option that benefits them also benefits the 1% (often even more so).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

blackbagboys 9y ago

The "1%" might be an overly broad bracket (it's catchier than "the parasite rentier class"), but there are plenty of people in that category who actively support policies that not only don't benefit the vast majority of the population, but actively, physically harm them. See, for instance, every top health insurance executive in the country.

malvosenior 9y ago
The argument the OP was making isn't about the 1% alone, it's about policies that benefit the 1% and the top 20%.