# Is there anything wrong with "class warfare"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 10, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-wrong-with-class-warfare/634349 "2012-09-10T23:03:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 249
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-wrong-with-class-warfare/634349/249 "2012-09-23T15:08:38Z")
And please, **mmmbeer** (and any of his would-be defenders) do be aware that the question on the table is not whether payroll taxes _should_ be counted as taxes. The question on the table is: When I write [QUOTE=Septimus] Right now, Romney and lowest-wage workers pay about the same, about 13% each. Do I understand that you want to drop Romney’s rate to 10% while increasing the rate on lowest-wage workers _**(payroll tax plus income tax)**_ to 23% ? [/QUOTE] Is it rational, or even sober, to respond with > [@mmmbeer](#): > > See where it says EACH according to his mean? 20%…If you were get out your dictionary, you would find that EACH means everybody! > 20% for everyone, where the hell do you get that I want to drop Romney’s rate to 10% and raise the lowest-wage workers to 23% > 20% for everyone means if Romney is someone, his rate would be 20% and if the lowest-wage worker is someone, guess what his rate would be? 20% Is that clear enough for you? > > My proposal for 10% was guess what? 10% for everyone. I was commenting back to the person who suggested 20% for WHO???, understand yet??, yeah, EVERYONE. > Do I have to spell out again that means for Romney AND the lowest-wage workers? Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anything-wrong-with-class-warfare/634349)._