4 ms·

Is it the case that you are coming at this from a point of view that is opposed to progressive liberalism in general? That would have been helpful to mention up

Is it the case that you are coming at this from a point of view that is opposed to progressive liberalism in general? That would have been helpful to mention up front, because the article you cite is actually arguing from the view of Sanders' proposal being insufficiently progressive. It seems disingenuous to me to cite it without clarifying that your own reasons for opposing the proposal are completely different.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
The article criticizes Sanders' proposal for allocating a large government benefit disproportionately to the middle class. I'm criticizing the proposal for the same reason. My point about taxes is the flip side of the same criticism. "Progressive liberals" view the upper middle class as a marginalized class that should receive government benefits, not a privileged class that should pay for them. That's why Sanders' proposed tax brackets are the same as Trump's until above $250,000. > Income bracket Tax Lower limit Upper limit Rate $0 – $18,450 10% $18,451 – $74,900 15% <--- German 42% rate starts here $74,901 – $151,200 25% $151,201 – $230,450 28% $230,451 – $250,000 33% $250,001 – $500,000 37% $500,001 – $2,000,000 43% $2,000,001 – $10,000,000 48% $10,000,001 – 52% Put differently, upper middle class "progressive liberals" only believe in a progressive system to the extent they are on the receiving end of the welfare system. So that someone who paid $100,000 for college and has a $100,000 job in New York is treated as the proper recipient of government welfare, at the expense of those above them. But taxing that guy like the privileged class, to support the people at the bottom who truly need it, is off the table.
- jqgatsby 7y ago
  Your example of the guy who has $100K in student loans and is making a $100K salary in New York is a good example, but I think we very much disagree on how he should be treated. If he's living in NYC, his take-home is about $68k after taxes and he's laying out $3500/month in rent for a one bedroom and paying $1k/month for the loans. That leaves him $1100/month for utilities, medical, and, you know, food if he wants to eat. I know there are plenty of people who are worse off, but this guy is working a non-trivial job just to tread water. Why do you have so little sympathy for him?
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Because (1) he's objectively well off, having a one bedroom apartment to himself in New York itself being a sign of prosperity and privilege; and (2) because he's around the 90th percentile income level, and if we don't tax him heavily we cannot afford an expansive welfare state. People in the top 25% but outside the top 1% earn half of all income, $5 trillion, 2.5x as much as the top 1%. You need high taxes on that group to support an expansive welfare state. In Germany, Mr. NYC would be taking home $57,000, and he'd pay 19% VAT on cocktails in Munich.
  - acheron 7y ago
    Living in a high cost of living area is voluntary consumption just as much as leasing a new BMW or going on European vacations twice a year. If he wants to stop "just treading water", then he can move somewhere else, such as a place that's not in the top 3 most expensive areas in the country; just like the guy with the BMW can buy a used Honda instead.
    - jqgatsby 7y ago
      That's a common fallacy. Places that have high paying jobs usually have high cost of living. You can't typically command high salaries in cheaper areas, but people seem to think that just by virtue of living in a certain area you are defacto well-off. Anyway, this hypothetical guy isn't helping my case, because we can either add or subtract virtues to make him more or less sympathetic. As someone who matched this description personally, I can tell you I did not feel "upper middle class" by any stretch of the imagination, which is what I was responding to.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

The article criticizes Sanders' proposal for allocating a large government benefit disproportionately to the middle class. I'm criticizing the proposal for the same reason. My point about taxes is the flip side of the same criticism. "Progressive liberals" view the upper middle class as a marginalized class that should receive government benefits, not a privileged class that should pay for them. That's why Sanders' proposed tax brackets are the same as Trump's until above $250,000. > Income bracket Tax Lower limit Upper limit Rate $0 – $18,450 10% $18,451 – $74,900 15% <--- German 42% rate starts here $74,901 – $151,200 25% $151,201 – $230,450 28% $230,451 – $250,000 33% $250,001 – $500,000 37% $500,001 – $2,000,000 43% $2,000,001 – $10,000,000 48% $10,000,001 – 52% Put differently, upper middle class "progressive liberals" only believe in a progressive system to the extent they are on the receiving end of the welfare system. So that someone who paid $100,000 for college and has a $100,000 job in New York is treated as the proper recipient of government welfare, at the expense of those above them. But taxing that guy like the privileged class, to support the people at the bottom who truly need it, is off the table.

jqgatsby 7y ago
Your example of the guy who has $100K in student loans and is making a $100K salary in New York is a good example, but I think we very much disagree on how he should be treated. If he's living in NYC, his take-home is about $68k after taxes and he's laying out $3500/month in rent for a one bedroom and paying $1k/month for the loans. That leaves him $1100/month for utilities, medical, and, you know, food if he wants to eat. I know there are plenty of people who are worse off, but this guy is working a non-trivial job just to tread water. Why do you have so little sympathy for him?
- rayiner 7y ago
  Because (1) he's objectively well off, having a one bedroom apartment to himself in New York itself being a sign of prosperity and privilege; and (2) because he's around the 90th percentile income level, and if we don't tax him heavily we cannot afford an expansive welfare state. People in the top 25% but outside the top 1% earn half of all income, $5 trillion, 2.5x as much as the top 1%. You need high taxes on that group to support an expansive welfare state. In Germany, Mr. NYC would be taking home $57,000, and he'd pay 19% VAT on cocktails in Munich.
- acheron 7y ago
  Living in a high cost of living area is voluntary consumption just as much as leasing a new BMW or going on European vacations twice a year. If he wants to stop "just treading water", then he can move somewhere else, such as a place that's not in the top 3 most expensive areas in the country; just like the guy with the BMW can buy a used Honda instead.
  - jqgatsby 7y ago
    That's a common fallacy. Places that have high paying jobs usually have high cost of living. You can't typically command high salaries in cheaper areas, but people seem to think that just by virtue of living in a certain area you are defacto well-off. Anyway, this hypothetical guy isn't helping my case, because we can either add or subtract virtues to make him more or less sympathetic. As someone who matched this description personally, I can tell you I did not feel "upper middle class" by any stretch of the imagination, which is what I was responding to.