Flat Tax: Fair or not?

[History_Buff]

The alternative is to raise taxes to even more obscene levels. When you're working for the government 4-5 months a year, and it still wants more, that's obscenity.

You mean that steaming pile called Tax Freedom Day? In order for that argument to make a lick of sense, you need to quantify exactly what the government buys for you. How 'bout it?

And taxes are at a record low. I would hesitate before calling this "obscene levels", lest you keel over and die of shock before your time.

It may well be that the populace gives in to class envy, punishes success, and pushes through the problem (I think its unlikely, but maybe) and it may "Work" but its still entirely devoid of ethics and I'm going to spread the message to the population that they are acting unethically in doing so.

EDIT: Note that I would suggest ending the war budget and scaling our military back to only what is needed to keep the country safe first and foremost.

Right, but I think we've established in the past that your idea of ethics is an insult to any and all logic. You need to stop repeated Libertarian talking points; you're less helpful to your country than anyone in Congress.

Well that's because they don't work.

You've assumed that the problem can be permanently fixed at all.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You mean that steaming pile called Tax Freedom Day? In order for that argument to make a lick of sense, you need to quantify exactly what the government buys for you. How 'bout it?

That's a fair argument against my logic, and you would be correct that to assume we get nothing for our money would be wrong. Of course, since we don't get to choose what its spent on, or even to ensure that the money actually goes towards things for us rather than other people, it is likely that most people are losing out on the deal. At least if we define "Losing out" as getting the most value for your own tax dollars paid. What you get from someone else is irrelevant.

And taxes are at a record low. I would hesitate before calling this "obscene levels", lest you keel over and die of shock before your time.

Taxes are not at a record low. They may be at a record low for a long time (Although I recall to reading that there were more loopholes and shelters in pre-Reagan days than there are now) but they aren't the lowest we ever had. When Lincoln instituted the income tax during the Civil War, it was about three percent if I recall correctly. The sixteenth amendment was passed initially and the top rate was like seven percent. Woodrow upped it because of his stupid war of course. And our taxes were far less than they are now when we revolted against England. People just want the government to do way too much these days.

Right, but I think we've established in the past that your idea of ethics is an insult to any and all logic. You need to stop repeated Libertarian talking points; you're less helpful to your country than anyone in Congress.

I'm not getting as much from the government as anyone in congress, and therefore much more useful than them Seriously though, why the insults? Focus on policy points, not people.

You've assumed that the problem can be permanently fixed at all.

I would not fault my country for borrowing to get through a situation clearly beyond their control. If China, Russia, and every Arab country in the middle east (An absurd example just to make a point) simultaneously declared war on us, and NATO abandoned us for some reason, I wouldn't tell my government not to borrow. Survival is obviously more important than having a balanced budget, or even paying your debts at all.

But real life isn't like that. We aren't spending all that money on necessities, even by the most absurd definition. We don't need bases in 160 countries, a bloated military budget, and a massive entitlements program. Of course, conservatives love the military size, liberals love the entitlements, and many moderates love both, but we don't NEED either of them.

If the government went back to the essentials and still really did need more money, I'd consent to paying more taxes. But we don't really need a lot of what we have.

 

[History_Buff]

That's a fair argument against my logic, and you would be correct that to assume we get nothing for our money would be wrong. Of course, since we don't get to choose what its spent on, or even to ensure that the money actually goes towards things for us rather than other people, it is likely that most people are losing out on the deal. At least if we define "Losing out" as getting the most value for your own tax dollars paid. What you get from someone else is irrelevant.

No, you do get to choose what it's spent on, and to ensure it goes to you and not other. It's called voting. The fact that you don't always get your way is just a fundamental consequence of living in society.

Taxes are not at a record low. They may be at a record low for a long time (Although I recall to reading that there were more loopholes and shelters in pre-Reagan days than there are now) but they aren't the lowest we ever had. When Lincoln instituted the income tax during the Civil War, it was about three percent if I recall correctly. The sixteenth amendment was passed initially and the top rate was like seven percent. Woodrow upped it because of his stupid war of course. And our taxes were far less than they are now when we revolted against England. People just want the government to do way too much these days.

They're lower than they've ever been since the second world war. Harkening back to the Gilded Age, the Revolution or the Civil War is pretty damned pointless, since the world has changed, and your country has changed with it.

I'm not getting as much from the government as anyone in congress, and therefore much more useful than them Seriously though, why the insults? Focus on policy points, not people.

Those guys in Congress do actually have jobs to do. You don't get to climb up on the high horse for not being paid, particularly since you're still in school, and thus receiving vast amounts of Federal funding, if indirectly.

I'll lose the insulting tone when you stop parroting Austrian nonsense.

...we still unquestionably gain nothing from the Wars in the Middle East, our bloated defense budget, foreign aid, the war on drugs, or the imprisonment of non-violent criminals.

That last bit I pulled out of the PM you sent me. It's a reasonable enough argument, but it deserves to be addressed publicly. You gain plenty from all the foreign wars, the defense budget, the war on drugs, and the imprisonment of non-violent criminals. The military employs millions and millions of people (I've heard it called the Jobs Program For the South), and the defense procurement industry is absolutely massive, and employs a lot of very high skill workers all over the nation (carefully dispersed in each congressional district usually). Similarly, the war on drugs feeds the prison industry, which itself a massive private business.

I'm not saying it's the most efficient approach, and it's certainly not the right way to be going about things, but to say you gain nothing from it is absurd.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, you do get to choose what it's spent on, and to ensure it goes to you and not other. It's called voting. The fact that you don't always get your way is just a fundamental consequence of living in society.

Firstly, that isn't really the point because all I'm doing right now is stating my own opinion, which I certainly have a right to do.

Its obvious that taxation benefits certain people disproportionally over others. Now, obviously, everyone benefits from the bare essentials, those being defense*, courts, and police. Almost everyone benefits from public infrastructure, such as roads and the like, as well. I've got no problem with the government spending money on those types of things.

After that, we're talking about benefiting specific people over others. Whether that's acceptable or not, "The majority says so" clearly isn't a very good argument.

They're lower than they've ever been since the second world war. Harkening back to the Gilded Age, the Revolution or the Civil War is pretty damned pointless, since the world has changed, and your country has changed with it.

The world has certainly changed since World War II as well. Speaking of which, wasn't the tax rate like 28% under Reagan? For at least one year?

I'd be the first to admit that we probably do need a marginally more powerful government than we did back then, if for no other reason than that there was no such thing as an "Air Force", "Nuclear Missile", or even "Cars" (So much less need for public roads) back during the Civil War/Gilded Age era. I don't think nearly as much as you do, however.

As for the clear problems with labor conditions in the Gilded Age, I'd argue that unions were able to settle those without direct government intervention. Although obviously the Union/Business dynamic was very different back then, because back then unions and businesses used violence against each other, and neither should be allowed to do so.

Those guys in Congress do actually have jobs to do. You don't get to climb up on the high horse for not being paid, particularly since you're still in school, and thus receiving vast amounts of Federal funding, if indirectly.

If I'm getting anywhere near a hundred and something thousand per year, the government is even more incompetent than I suspect it is. It doesn't take much to be worth more than the average congressmen though. Both sides are incompetent, don't stand for anything, and give us the illusion of choice. There are a few exceptions to this of course. And I'd include some of the more left-wing Democrats in this as well, at least they are actually opposed to warmongering.

I'll lose the insulting tone when you stop parroting Austrian nonsense.

Oh please. At least I'm not being rude in doing so. You could share the same courtesy


[/QUOTE]That last bit I pulled out of the PM you sent me. It's a reasonable enough argument, but it deserves to be addressed publicly. You gain plenty from all the foreign wars, the defense budget, the war on drugs, and the imprisonment of non-violent criminals. The military employs millions and millions of people (I've heard it called the Jobs Program For the South), and the defense procurement industry is absolutely massive, and employs a lot of very high skill workers all over the nation (carefully dispersed in each congressional district usually). Similarly, the war on drugs feeds the prison industry, which itself a massive private business.

I'm not saying it's the most efficient approach, and it's certainly not the right way to be going about things, but to say you gain nothing from it is absurd.[/QUOTE]

Of course it benefits the people it employs. It doesn't benefit me, however, or the average taxpayer, so the point still applies. I also wouldn't consider an immoral policy that happens to employ someone to do something that's of no benefit to us a valuable gain from taxation that justifies the payment. If nothing else, it proves my point that people could gain far more value for their money if they were allowed to spend it as they wished.

 

[History_Buff]

Firstly, that isn't really the point because all I'm doing right now is stating my own opinion, which I certainly have a right to do.

Its obvious that taxation benefits certain people disproportionally over others. Now, obviously, everyone benefits from the bare essentials, those being defense*, courts, and police. Almost everyone benefits from public infrastructure, such as roads and the like, as well. I've got no problem with the government spending money on those types of things.

After that, we're talking about benefiting specific people over others. Whether that's acceptable or not, "The majority says so" clearly isn't a very good argument.

Why not? Should everything need to apply equally to everyone before we do it? Why should Alaska have roads if you'll probably never drive on them? Surely they benefit Alaskans over you. Why should the government spend any money enforcing accessibility requirements for the handicapped, since not everyone is handicapped?

At the end of the day, "The Majority Says So" is a pretty solid argument, most of the time. There are limits to be sure, but those are pretty well protected already in the US.

The world has certainly changed since World War II as well. Speaking of which, wasn't the tax rate like 28% under Reagan? For at least one year?

Actually, you're correct there. There was probably a period around Carter/Reagan 1 where tax rates were lower overall. But not much lower than today. And it's worth it to recall that when Reagan cut the top rate to 28%, he also inexplicably raised the bottom rate to 15% (from 11%).

I'd be the first to admit that we probably do need a marginally more powerful government than we did back then, if for no other reason than that there was no such thing as an "Air Force", "Nuclear Missile", or even "Cars" (So much less need for public roads) back during the Civil War/Gilded Age era. I don't think nearly as much as you do, however.

I think the country has gotten significantly more advanced than just cars, planes and weapons. The world is so much more interconnected now, travel is so simple, and demographics are so different, that you can't compare the governments then and now.

As for the clear problems with labor conditions in the Gilded Age, I'd argue that unions were able to settle those without direct government intervention. Although obviously the Union/Business dynamic was very different back then, because back then unions and businesses used violence against each other, and neither should be allowed to do so.

You'll note though that very seldom did the Unions resort to violence first. I'm also not sure how you see things like Right To Work, which are actively designed to destroy the power of unions to roll back the gains they've made.

If I'm getting anywhere near a hundred and something thousand per year, the government is even more incompetent than I suspect it is. It doesn't take much to be worth more than the average congressmen though. Both sides are incompetent, don't stand for anything, and give us the illusion of choice. There are a few exceptions to this of course. And I'd include some of the more left-wing Democrats in this as well, at least they are actually opposed to warmongering.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were getting that much, but it's essentially impossible to calculate exactly how much worth you get out of a road, as opposed to your neighbors. But at the end of the day, Congress, while unpopular, still has a difficult job to do, and you hardly get to write 90% of them off as worthless just because they may have supported a foreign war. That is a very small part of their job description.

Oh please. At least I'm not being rude in doing so. You could share the same courtesy

And I think it's rude to make arguments that have no basis in reality. At that point, you might as well be Alex Jones.

Of course it benefits the people it employs. It doesn't benefit me, however, or the average taxpayer, so the point still applies. I also wouldn't consider an immoral policy that happens to employ someone to do something that's of no benefit to us a valuable gain from taxation that justifies the payment.

It does benefit you though. The military and it's contractors design all kinds of stuff, and have contributed a myriad of advances to society as a whole. Having a high tech industrial base is always good for a country, as it gives a skilled labour pool for non-defense industries to draw on.

Prison labour provides cheap goods that you can buy. Many states manufacture all of their license plates through prison labour. They also make clothing, work in customer service, and all sort of random stuff.

If nothing else, it proves my point that people could gain far more value for their money if they were allowed to spend it as they wished.

This beauty right here completely ignores the benefits you can gain by having the government act as a sole provider of certain goods and services.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why not? Should everything need to apply equally to everyone before we do it? Why should Alaska have roads if you'll probably never drive on them? Surely they benefit Alaskans over you.

I never said the FEDERAL government should pay for roads

You are right here though. Nothing is perfect, and yeah, some people will benefit from public services more than others. What I object to are deliberate wealth transfers, or unnecessary public services.

Why should the government spend any money enforcing accessibility requirements for the handicapped, since not everyone is handicapped?

Unless you're referring to government facilities here, they shouldn't, that's not their job. If you are referring to government services, that falls under my "Yeah, some people will benefit from public services more than others, that's reality" argument.

At the end of the day, "The Majority Says So" is a pretty solid argument, most of the time. There are limits to be sure, but those are pretty well protected already in the US.

Its a pretty pathetic argument when it comes to actual ethics, especially when the limits on "The majority says so" are also decided by majority rule. (And don't tell me they're actually determined by the constitution until all hate speech statues and limitations on gun ownership are abolished as per the constitution.)

Actually, you're correct there. There was probably a period around Carter/Reagan 1 where tax rates were lower overall. But not much lower than today. And it's worth it to recall that when Reagan cut the top rate to 28%, he also inexplicably raised the bottom rate to 15% (from 11%).

Its not entirely inexplicable, its part of the whole "conservative" idea that everyone should pay their "Fair share." As a non-anarchist, I do indeed think everyone should pay something, but I completely disagree with him raising the rate from 11 to 15%. 11% is a plenty high tax rate. I'd even say too high. Cut freaking spending.

I think the country has gotten significantly more advanced than just cars, planes and weapons. The world is so much more interconnected now, travel is so simple, and demographics are so different, that you can't compare the governments then and now.

I see no reason why any of this translates into "More government services." If anything, modern technology makes them LESS necessary, not more.

You'll note though that very seldom did the Unions resort to violence first.

Well, unions absolutely have the right to quit en masse, but to actually occupy the property, as unions sometimes did (Although maybe not before businesses did, I don't know) is a form of tresspass and shouldn't be legal. You may be right overall here though. And if businesses used violence first, that should be criminal as well. Initiation of force shouldn't be legal, except in response to someone else using force.

[/QUOTE]I'm also not sure how you see things like Right To Work, which are actively designed to destroy the power of unions to roll back the gains they've made.[/QUOTE]

This may surprise you, but I'm against those laws. If a business and a union want to negotiate a closed shop, that should be completely legal. Of course, if a business doesn't want to deal with unions, that's also their choice, which may lead to a shortage of labor, or other problems.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were getting that much, but it's essentially impossible to calculate exactly how much worth you get out of a road, as opposed to your neighbors. But at the end of the day, Congress, while unpopular, still has a difficult job to do, and you hardly get to write 90% of them off as worthless just because they may have supported a foreign war. That is a very small part of their job description.

With very disastrous consequences. Supporting an unjust war alone does far more harm than a typical serial killer.

Sorry, but I'm not giving them a free pass just because they're in the government.

I don't really care for the anti-war liberals either, they're still big government liberals, but I at least give them some credit for being consistent and for opposing their own party when they know its wrong. I could vote for someone like Dennis Kucinich under sufficiently dire circumstances, and I'd certainly support his kind over another Geroge W. Bush or Obama.

This beauty right here completely ignores the benefits you can gain by having the government act as a sole provider of certain goods and services.

Some? Sure! Lots? Not so much, at least IMO.

 

[Eukaryote]

I've seen a few people argue for a "flat tax" so that everyone pays the same rate in income taxes, no loopholes, no shelters. So for instance the tax rate might be 15% across the board on all income with the first 30,000 exempt. Would such a tax rate be fair? Why or why not?

I consider myself a utilitarian. To me "fair" is irrelevant. What matters is whether a flax tax would maximize the aggregate well being of society, which I doubt.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I consider myself a utilitarian. To me "fair" is irrelevant. What matters is whether a flax tax would maximize the aggregate well being of society, which I doubt.

I have plenty of reasons for opposing utilitarianism, many of which have to do with deontological ethics which are related to my faith and personal morality, both of which can't really be "Proved" with any emprical framework. However, this has always struck me as a pretty good argument against utilitarianism. This may have been refuted before, but I find it to be a pretty good argument, or at least one worth a casual debunking.

As far as my (Deontological, based on the non-aggression principle for legality and based on divine command for morality*) ethics go, they also render this question pretty irrelevant. I consider any government that goes beyond its proper bounds to be fundamentally evil in doing so and so any tactic (That is not immoral for some other reason) that helps to right this state of affairs is ethically right. So to raise taxes on anyone when the government is clearly out of bounds would be, to me, unethical. Since it is highly unlikely that any flat tax would reduce income taxes all the way down to the taxes that the very poorest pay, any attempt to raise taxes on them would be currently unethical, as it would enable our current spending.

So, in other words, right now it would be ethical, in my view, to vote against ALL tax increases, and vote in favor of ALL cuts, at least until government is retractred to its rightful size. Any discussion on what a fair tax rate per person is is irrelevant UNTIL we control the spending.

I don't know how much the poorest pay right now, so I don't know if they are paying "Too little" or not. My view is that ultimately, everyone benefits from the (Properly limited, there are certainly people, such as drug users who are incarcerated, who would be better off without any government than with the current American government). I also haven't calculated what the government programs I actually want (Pretty much only defense at the Federal level, and also police, courts, roads, and education at the state or local level) would cost, so I don't know how high taxes would need to be to pay for that. So my position isn't so much "The tax rate needs to be X" as it is "Spending needs to be limited to Y, with taxes as necessary to pay for it".

The truly fairest way to go from here is to tax everyone in accordance with how much they benefit. To the extreme this means user fees on everything, but that's not really possible because of externalities and all that. The next best thing is to try and guess.

I think it would still be pretty tough to guess accurately, so I don't insist on this. Certainly the rich benefit more from even what I would consider a just government than the poor (Having their property rights protected is much more important to them than the poor) and so they should certainly pay a higher dollar amount than the poor (I've never heard of anyone arguing for everyone paying exactly the same dollar amount, except rhetorically to prove the "Same percentage" argument wrong, but I figured I'd distance myself from it anyway.) Of course, with the flat tax, they still do pay more, much more, than the poor.

While I do think the fact that government protects the property rights of the rich should be taken into account when it comes to taxing the rich, this should only be the case up to the extent that it does in fact cost money (And it certainly does cost some) to protect their property. I don't think you can say "We can take as much as we want because we recognize your right and you benefit from that" while still being moral for a few reasons.

Firstly, it isn't strictly true that the rich can protect their property only through government. Government makes it easier, but it does not make it possible. People could voluntarily recognize property rights due to contracts made. Businesses could hire their own security/bodyguards, heck, even court systems, if there was no government. That would, at least possibly, lead to a nightmare scenario where wealth IS the law, rather than the law simply not protecting wealth. I don't see this as desirable, so I disagree with the anarcho-capitalists, even while admiring a lot of what they say.

Secondly, even if it were IMPOSSIBLE to protect property without government, government still has a duty to protect it because its a human right**. Now, as stated, the person who wants them to protect their property still owes them the cost of doing so, they shouldn't get to redistribute those costs to someone else, but if a state is going to claim a monopoly of force (Or close to it, my vision of a "State" does not have the same degree of "Monopoly of force" as a typical state, although they are still the main users of defensive force in my vision) they have a duty, in my opinion, to protect property at no profit to themselves (I'm not counting the costs of doing so, or the salaries of the people who do so, as "Profits"). They cannot "Compete" by charging higher prices, because they have a legally protected monopoly.

Ultimately, I think a straight up tax on property seems like the best solution, since that's the main service the government supplies. Own a lot of property, pay a lot of tax. Own a little, use a little tax. Roads could fairly easily be paid for by user fees, its called tolls (Which also discourage pointless use and so helps the environment, for all of you "Green" folks). I'm no expert on taxes though, so I'm in no way certain of this. I'm much more concerned with the amount of spending and taxes than I am with the exact modus operandi of collection.

 

[Leoreth]

"I have plenty of reasons to oppose to moral system A, namely that I adhere to moral system B."

 

[GhostWriter16]

"I have plenty of reasons to oppose to moral system A, namely that I adhere to moral system B."

Utility Monster

I was more presenting my own view than arguing his. Its pretty hard to dig people out of class warfare once their entrenched into it.

 

[History_Buff]

The utility monster isn't exactly a refutation of Utilitarianism though. There are plenty of flavours of Utilitarianism on which such a monster has little or no effect.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The utility monster isn't exactly a refutation of Utilitarianism though. There are plenty of flavours of Utilitarianism on which such a monster has little or no effect.

How?

Even ignoring that, I still consider Utilitarianism to be something of an excuse for a lack of faith and an unwillingness to stick to what's right no matter what. More specifically, it hurts people to help other people by design. Utilitarianism allows you to steal 99 if you can get 100 out of it, although you usually call it "Taxation" in order to avoid the more blatantly violent externalities.

 

[History_Buff]

Rawls wrote about it plenty. In fact, it's mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked.

 

[Labtec600]

Then it's the fact that the higher incomes benefit from the government more and therefore should pay for it. Police protect persons and property from theft or damage and stuff like that. Rich people have more to lose without a police force or an army or any government to protect their wealth

What are you talking about?

Do the rich get food from the government?
Do the rich get a paycheck from the government?
Do the rich get housing from the government?
Do the rich get healthcare from the government?

The rich get no where near from the government compared to what they put into it. There isnt a high police presence in a rich neighborhood because it's not needed. The rich dont break into each other's homes to steal their belongings. You're acting like a nice neighborhood is nice because it has a cop on every corner.

No, a nice neighborhood is nice because the residents are cilivilized and dont steal, kill, and rape each other for their gains. They have financial ability to live.

 

[TomYo689]

There's relatively poor people somewhere who built their fancy neighborhood. You make it sound like the wealth to life off of bond interest is self sustaining. Everyone can be rich and no one has to do any work, there doesn't need to be a whole economy with human labor

Yeah well established and fully functional governments have better potential for breeding and preserving wealthy individuals. Afghanistan and Somalia aren't rich people hot spots they're bad places to do live and do business

 

[History_Buff]

What are you talking about?

Do the rich get food from the government?
Do the rich get a paycheck from the government?
Do the rich get housing from the government?
Do the rich get healthcare from the government?

The rich get no where near from the government compared to what they put into it. There isnt a high police presence in a rich neighborhood because it's not needed. The rich dont break into each other's homes to steal their belongings. You're acting like a nice neighborhood is nice because it has a cop on every corner.

No, a nice neighborhood is nice because the residents are cilivilized and dont steal, kill, and rape each other for their gains. They have financial ability to live.

You're a fool. The rich benefit from preservation of their property, both physical and intellectual. While this often does not require beat cops, the legal system allows them to recover any losses. The government goes to great length to uphold contract law, which protects the rich more than it really does the poor. In addition, they benefit a huge amount from labor force which receives compulsory schooling, their businesses are built on the backs of research done at publicly subsidized universities, and are also dependent on the vast amount of infrastructure that the government builds and maintains. There's literally dozens more ways the rich benefit more from the government than the poorer do; these are the ones I came up with inside 10 seconds.

 

[Agent327]

I never said the FEDERAL government should pay for roads

Will be kind of hard to keep up a federal infrastructure without it. (But then, a lot of US highways are in a terrible state.)

Do the rich get food from the government?
Do the rich get a paycheck from the government?
Do the rich get housing from the government?
Do the rich get healthcare from the government?

The rich get no where near from the government compared to what they put into it. There isnt a high police presence in a rich neighborhood because it's not needed. The rich dont break into each other's homes to steal their belongings. You're acting like a nice neighborhood is nice because it has a cop on every corner.

No, a nice neighborhood is nice because the residents are cilivilized and dont steal, kill, and rape each other for their gains. They have financial ability to live.

And, ofcourse, a state that makes all those nice things possible in the first place, and protects their way of life from bad guys, both foreign and domestic. So, yes, the rich profit from the state, even more so than the less rich, as they have more interests to protect. The state provides the infrastructure, so to speak, and the means to defend that infrastructure. Now, if you want a rich people-only state, you should move to Monaco or thereabouts. But most modern states have less-than-rich who do all the work the rich can't. (It's called capitalism, for short.)

 

[Leoreth]

Even ignoring that, I still consider Utilitarianism to be something of an excuse for a lack of faith and an unwillingness to stick to what's right no matter what.

No, you just don't understand that utilitarians have a different concept of what's right. Duh.

 

[Traitorfish]

I was more presenting my own view than arguing his. Its pretty hard to dig people out of class warfare once their entrenched into it.

Utilitarian are the most anti-"class warfare" people you could hope to come across. Their entire project is about finding a extra-historical perspective- a "view from nowhere- and therefore a perspective outside of any given social class, and attempting to make ethical judgements from this nowhere-place of absolute neutrality. The political ethics of class struggle, in contrast, hinge on a rejection of the need or possibility of assuming an extra-historical perspective, and the construction of a political ethics particular to the experience and needs of the subaltern social class. (These ethics may still be consequentialist, but that's a far broader camp than utilitarian.)

The utilitarian says to the state "we should raise unemployment benefits, because that would be best for everyone". The class strugglist says to the state "we should raise unemployment benefits, because @#&$ you". Different, y'know?

Do the rich get food from the government?
Do the rich get a paycheck from the government?
Do the rich get housing from the government?
Do the rich get healthcare from the government?

The state prevents me from stealing their food, appropriating their factories, burning down their houses and slitting their throats, so, yes, I would say that all four boxes are ticked.

 

[Leoreth]

As if it hadn't been long established that GW has no idea what class struggle means and simply uses it as a conservative soundbite.