Should taxes on the upper middle class be raised?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Let's be honest - the extensive welfare state that left-liberal Americans want for the country could not be paid for solely through tax increases on the "1 percent." Not even close.

Oddly enough, I actually do agree with the (ugh) "skin in the game" talking point of the Right, but only because people should have a real stake (financial and otherwise) in what the government does. Some of the worst, most dysfunctional governments have very low taxes on their population (see: Saudi Arabia - relying on revenues from exports of national resources generally isn't wise, even less so for a representative democracy). What incentive do people have to support such governments? Well, other than systemic political repression ofc.

Anyway, my answer should be obvious.

[heatcharger]

Define upper middle class.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Of Course Not ( I also support cutting government spending not increasing it)

[Goldwater]

Ideally not, if it can be avoided.

[courts]

i think taxes on income and consumption (in certain areas, gas comes to mind) should be higher. taxes on corporations should be lowered, even if that is largely offset by removing certain deductions.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, absolutely.

[RINO Tom]

Ideally not, if it can be avoided.

[NeverAgain]

"Upper Middle Class" is a very broad term. If you mean those making around $90,000 - $150,000 (A Common Definition), then it all depends on what tax. I believe that the gas tax should be raised, which is technically raising taxes on the upper middle class. The income tax? Likely not. I think that systematic tax reform is needed, and shouldn't involve raising taxes on these folks.

In the end, I think that a promise to "never raise taxes on the middle class, nor anyone" is stupid and impractical, but I believe that we should make an attempt to lower the cost of living for these (and especially those with lesser income) folks, through decreasing the price of healthcare, making energy more affordable and greener, and through establishing childcare as a universal right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (upper middle class).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Lemme get to that point, and then I'll let'cha know.

[Kingpoleon]

"Upper Middle Class" is a very broad term. If you mean those making around $90,000 - $150,000 (A Common Definition), then it all depends on what tax. I believe that the gas tax should be raised, which is technically raising taxes on the upper middle class. The income tax? Likely not. I think that systematic tax reform is needed, and shouldn't involve raising taxes on these folks.

In the end, I think that a promise to "never raise taxes on the middle class, nor anyone" is stupid and impractical, but I believe that we should make an attempt to lower the cost of living for these (and especially those with lesser income) folks, through decreasing the price of healthcare, making energy more affordable and greener, and through establishing childcare as a universal right.

1. No it is not technically - it is effectively.

2. Those making >$100,000 a year are the top one percent in Arkansas.

[JA]

There are other tax options we should be exploring, such as eco taxes and a land value tax, before we consider raising income taxes. But if we're going to promote the "skin in the game" concept then we also need to fight for true universal social welfare benefits that don't help just the poor, but all Americans. Universal healthcare with either single payer or a public option, paid parental leave, tuition free public universities, a universal basic income to replace most current welfare benefits, and so on. Make as many people pay and ensure as many people benefit as possible. That's how you create popular programs that actually work.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes. These people should really be called the lower rich.

[NeverAgain]

"Upper Middle Class" is a very broad term. If you mean those making around $90,000 - $150,000 (A Common Definition), then it all depends on what tax. I believe that the gas tax should be raised, which is technically raising taxes on the upper middle class. The income tax? Likely not. I think that systematic tax reform is needed, and shouldn't involve raising taxes on these folks.

In the end, I think that a promise to "never raise taxes on the middle class, nor anyone" is stupid and impractical, but I believe that we should make an attempt to lower the cost of living for these (and especially those with lesser income) folks, through decreasing the price of healthcare, making energy more affordable and greener, and through establishing childcare as a universal right.

1. No it is not technically - it is effectively.

2. Those making >$100,000 a year are the top one percent in Arkansas.

1. Well, my assumption was that since we are talking about a specific group of people it would be an individual tax (based on income, not consumption) on these people. So since a petrol tax would be a tax on everyone that uses petrol, it would be technically and effectively a tax on the "upper middle income" folks.

2. While it is lower than the national average (actually the lowest in the country), the top one percent of Arkansas is closer to $250,000. So, yes what "upper middle income" means, varies, state by state. But $100,000 is still not 1% in Arkansas, and (I believe) would fall under upper middle income.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No way.

[JA]

Yes. These people should really be called the lower rich.

Lower rich? When 1% of the country owns 80-90% percent of the wealth? No one that makes below 250,000 a year is rich. Hell, I would put it at a million.

And sure, raise taxes, but there better be universal health care. Not just a random tax increase to pad Raytheon stock.

[Maxwell]

where's Non Swing Voter, you're going to make him cry.

[Intell]

Definitely, not a lot, but definitely a bit.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The cap on social security should be removed.

[Horus]

Definitely, not a lot, but definitely a bit.

[White Trash]

Yes (upper middleworking class).

[Tartarus Sauce]

Not really? I'm from an upper-middle class family and I do support a relatively progressive tax structure, so I am in favor of having the upper-middle class shoulder a higher proportion of the the tax burden than the classes below them, but the upper-middle class as commonly envisioned already has the short end of the stick on income taxes. You'd need to redefine the income brackets if you wanted to pursue the progressive agenda of taxing the rich, because simply raising the taxes on the current highest income bracket hits the top 5% harder than the top 1%. We should also be engaging in a more widespread reform of taxes beyond just the income tax as well.

So no because 1. By increasing taxes on the upper-middle class under the current system, you're actually proportionally decreasing the amount the wealthiest echelon of society is contributing 2. Income tax is only part of the picture for reducing wealth inequality. 3. The upper-middle class already gets shafted by the current tax structure.

I do support a keeping a progressive tax structure though.

[Libertarian in Name Only]

Not really? I'm from an upper-middle class family and I do support a relatively progressive tax structure, so I am in favor of having the upper-middle class shoulder a higher proportion of the the tax burden than the classes below them, but the upper-middle class as commonly envisioned already has the short end of the stick on income taxes. You'd need to redefine the income brackets if you wanted to pursue the progressive agenda of taxing the rich, because simply raising the taxes on the current highest income bracket hits the top 5% harder than the top 1%. We should also be engaging in a more widespread reform of taxes beyond just the income tax as well.

So no because 1. By increasing taxes on the upper-middle class under the current system, you're actually proportionally decreasing the amount the wealthiest echelon of society is contributing 2. Income tax is only part of the picture for reducing wealth inequality. 3. The upper-middle class already gets shafted by the current tax structure.

I do support a keeping a progressive tax structure though.

Out of curiosity, what $ would you consider upper middle class in MA?

[dead0man]

Yeah, lets screw over the guys already getting screwed over the most by taxes.  Did you guys run out of made up taxes to screw the poor and lower middle class over with?  Perhaps something on disposable diapers (ya know, to save the environment)?  You already tax the sh**t out of the only things they can legally enjoy (beer and smokes), why not soda too?



If you guys hate the poor, hate the middle class, love war and violence...what part of the left is left?  Ahhh, the dumbass switch to a focus on identity politics...of course.

[dead0man]

I've been nursing a 12 pack since the beginning of April, so I don't think so.