Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
05.20.11 - 11:23 AM
Not Broke, Just Twisted
So much talk about debt and austerity; so little focus on gross inequality. A video from the Institute For Policy Studies offers stunning income, profit and tax figures on an America "awash in wealth" held by a fortunate, twisted few.
47.4: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 1961.
11.1: Percent of profits corporations paid in taxes in 2011.
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
59 Comments so far
Show AllGrowing up in Trenton, New Jersey, I would make an occasional trip to Princeton, NJ (18-miles away) to walk the beautiful campus or to see a hockey game. What I did not understand was why no one seemed to notice me or even see me there at all. Many years later I was able to understand that I was out of bounds; that this kid from Trenton simply did not belong in a town like Princeton - I was outta my league. Today in the USA the middle class is being demolished by greed and none of the political figures we elect give a damm or will go to bat for us. We are invisible. We are screwed. We do not belong here.
You belong here, John. There is a modern fully functioning democracy that includes a democratic economy out there. You and I are are as equal there as anybody else.
But "Some are more equal than others" ...
Excuse me for being so blunt but WAKE UP MATHEW. Democracy dose not exist, never did and never will. Equality does not exist in the USA, never did and never will. I sermise by your comment Mathew that you are a white male...¿no?
There is unlimited democracy and justice in the US.
Like everything else in the US, democracy and justice are for sale to the highest bidder.
You're being sarcastic, right?
Sound's like the straight dope to me,
>^^<
some are more equal that others, forget at your peril!
In 1970 corporations paid 29% of all US income taxes.
In 2009 corporations paid 6% of all US income taxes.
By the time Obama pushes his tax "reform" through, corporations will pay even less.
Every dollar that corporations are not paying in taxes is another dollar the gov. must get from you and I to finance more corporate welfare and more corporate tax breaks.
"Every dollar that corporations are not paying in taxes is another dollar the gov. must get from you and I to finance more corporate welfare and more corporate tax breaks."
That's the part that is so very often overlooked. 98% of us pay so that 02% of them don't have to pay anything. And I guess we are supposed to be happy about it. But hey we didn't put any conditions on their bailout, but we have to go through drug testing to qualify for welfare...makes little sense. So why do we still buy into it?
..
I believe the quote from Orwell's "Animal Farm" is: 'All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal than others.' These days, no need to paraphrase the original.
John R - Have you read Johnathan Kozol's "Savage Inequalities" which compares education in Camden and Cherry Hill? I think you would relate.
Thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out.
John R
Like the Movie "Breaking Away". A small town that was once prosperous with Mining LimeStone and the local folks being called "Cutters" by the priviledge College Students. That movie was in the late 70's and just the beginning. We are seeing the End Game now.
John R., This invokes Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man." I hope you've read it. If not. You should. Though it's narrated from the perspective of an early twentieth century black man it nevertheless bridges racial divides to span both cultural and class struggles of that era.
The struggles are much the same today. The sources of such struggles are deviously hidden out in the open, yet go unseen. The blind living among the blind. The nameless narrator in "Invisible Man" begins his story while he is in school.He recounts his life in hindsight from the molestation of his intellectual immaturity to necessarily, the opening of his eyes to the banality of reformist social struggle within the well-defined constructs of the oppressive class. Reforming a system that is built to reward the ruling class reaps fruitless rewards.
This leads to one motto of the book, Truth is light and light is truth. Many people claim to see the answers that will set the "middle class" free from their abusive masters. They need "Good" representation, taxation for the rich and corporations, etc. These things feel good to scream. I PAID MINE NOW YOU PAY YOURS! In the end, its the same dichotomous master/slave morality pitted against itself once again.
Nietzche wrote about this relationship over a hundred years ago and yet his shortcoming in viewing this most nihilistic analysis of humanity is the same one present today. He refused to see morality and humanity outside of this prison/moral construct erected by the ruling class. If one steps back, though the truth is sometimes ugly, it is plain to see that this morality does not exist outside of these predefined systems.
The ugly truth: The middle class are not victims in this scenario. The middle class is a perpetrator. It is the ruling class's henchman. What are henchman if they are not reminders of our most dastardly deeds and our most morally bankrupt moments. Of course you were invisible. Perhaps, you still are. Corporations and the rich paying more taxes won't affect that. It will not allow you more freedom or even personhood. The system will not allow it and new ways will be found to strip you of pigment and identity.
The narrator of the "Invisible Man" eventually comes to terms with his invisibility. He realizes its advantages and he learns to embrace his solitude rather than live within a nest of lies, suckling off of half-truths, and selling his moralistic standards for a cheap thrill or masturbatory salute.
I think in the end he realizes that in order for there to be real change. The system has to collapse, knowing that his invisibility will enable him to survive. Is this the best approach? No. Because he is not a solution to the problem. He realizes the problem but still feels powerless, or recognizes his limited aptitude to do anything about it.
You can see your own invisibility. How can you use it?
Momerath
To paraphrase from the title of a famous jazz album from the early 1960s:
The Blues and The [not so] Abstract Truth
Yes!! these five suggestions must be implemented by Congress. But they won't be --- even if every single one of us sends our Senators and our Representatives the request that they make these changes in our tax codes. Won't happen.
Our 'representatives' don't represent us. They are the paid lackeys of the very rich and the 'representatives' don't represent the people but obey the directions of their 'contributors'. This is corruption and does not apply to only one of our major political parties. Both are equally evil.
What to do to change this I don't know. What do you think the people can do to change the distribution of wealth in our nation? How can we get some democracy in our nation?
If we can't get peaceful change - voting it out - we have to go to non-peaceful methods. All that takes is getting to the point where enough people have nothing to lose.
The woman in the picture above - who clearly has nothing to lose - is most like someone in need of mental help. I don't think she represents the disenfranchised middle class - yet anyway.
It won't be an either/or thing with regard to violence. Somebody might set themself on fire. Others might walk into banks or corporate headquarters and blow themselves up, or crash a vehicle into a corporate headquarters.
Many are sliding from middle class toward a place by the side of the down and out woman in the photo. There will be stages where some determine to take one last action of their choosing. The woman on the street has few options left (maybe just a few options to hasten her end, or just wait for it).
To organize sooner than later gives us a stronger team with more options and resources to use more effective, non-violent means.
" ....But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-lecture.html
Martin Luther King's Nobel Peace Prize speech.
gardenernorcal, Thanks. If only James Earl Ray had been a poor shot.
If only the men who shot Lennon and Reagan had exchanged places.
---What to do to change this I don't know. What do you think the people can do to change the distribution of wealth in our nation? How can we get some democracy in our nation?
Americans are socialized to be very individualistic. This is hard to understand until you live abroad for awhile in a less hyper-capitalistic country. Just visiting or vacationing won't give you the sense of what it means to live more collaboratively or cooperatively. Try being an expat; it is culture shock. But this sense of collective identity is why there are mass protests against austerity measures elsewhere while far fewer and far smaller protests occur in the U.S.
One other thought. Many of the other industrialized countries have been around a long time. They have gone through their 'adolescent phase' and paid the price. The U.S. is just starting to get there.
wantrealdemocracy, see my suggestions elsewhere in this thread.
Great little movie. Nice soundtrack to boot.
The average American is brainwashed from the time he is born with the ridiculous lie that America is the greatest country on earth when in fact as anyone with a brain can see they have the most violent, stupid and corrupt country in the western world. They have two right wing parties both of whom represent corporate interests almost entirely and they are massively overdosed on the dumbest and most vile forms of christianity the world has ever known.
I suggest you get out more. Seriously - start reading about other countries - most are doing the crap America is only on a far far worse scale. All America is doing is behaving like the moderately bad countries now. When it starts behaving like the worst, the poverty for the class formerly known as "middle" will be so severe that you won't have electricity let alone internet, to complain about it.
Sundome, I think Thalidomide is right. He said "in the Western world," not "the world."
Let me add that there are thousands, maybe even more, of U.S. citizens working conscientiously to reverse the course of their country.
manning120 wrote:
"Let me add that there are thousands, maybe even more, of U.S. citizens working conscientiously to reverse the course of their country."
Out of a population of around 311 million for the USA that sounds somewhat depressing. :-(
Good luck to all my friends in America.
One day...who knows when....after it's all hit the fan, when the great majority of Americans are sitting around feeble campfires having rat-on-a-stick again whilst they watch everything they used to support fall apart, crumble and be ripped away with no hope of return, perhaps then they'll spare a thought for all those who tried to wake them up. -- But don't count on it.
Still, it's not all doom & gloom because it's an opportunity for real change and an evolution, especially away from xenophobic nation-based ideologies of superiority and exceptionalism.
Personally I don't think anything's going to change much unless there's a decent natural disaster to quell escalating things as they are now, or it'll be up to the inevitable and inescapable confluence of several other factors all coming into play at once or one after another without respite.
Either way it's going to be a rough ride but at least there's a final destination worth arriving at......unless the course is diverted and real human progress is once again stalled because of the avarice for power & wealth over fellow humans and the planet by the malignant in this world.
The end of financial year is coming up soon and boy, won't that be fun?
I'm guessing there'll be a Financial Rapture Day whereby the wealthy are taken up (again) and laden down with even more ill-gotten wealth than they know what to do with which then weighs them down to settle once more upon the Earth to lord it over us all. - Hallelujah!
Expect even more incredible outlandish and despicable profits received being touted as being yet another hallowed sign of a 'recovery' and a way to get out of the financial mess that the plebs supposedly keep pulling the world down into.
Then again there's always a tactic of a financial disaster to threaten the world with and a global bank as being the only answer, with the lords & masters in charge of course with no rules or regulations to abide by. It'd be a great kickstart and reboot into world capitalism and global hegemony.
It always makes me laugh at how people seem to think the 'middle class' is something special, something good and worthy that not only must be saved at all costs but was always seemed to be in their minds the sole reason for human advancement, stability, and part of the natural human order of things. - Hah! ;-)
The 'middle class' was yet another invention, a sideshow of social living that enabled social disparity, divisions, and control. It was very much like the donkey & carrot approach that capitalism plays whereby you're always lead along with the promise of a juicy carrot just as long as you keep doing the work expected of you.
People felt like being part of a separate social tribe in the middle class, always better than those below them but taking on the airs of royalty in muted tones whilst always secretly aspiring to rise well above and become part of the exclusive 'upper class'.
The fact it's now the *American* 'middle class' being mined out for wealth and property seems to be quite an affront to those who thought themselves exceptionalised.
Lives being lived by illusions, avarice, selfishness and not only a disregard for other people worldwide, but also contempt for their fellow man living closeby and next to them. Lives separated by skin colour, income, social status and any other invention that made the great illusion machine work.
Well it seems everyone but the very few, the very rich and influential are fair game for the munch-cruncher machine that's tearing through the USA and the world with people being throw into the chipper without a care at all. The mighty military, that hallowed church of so many Americans must be fed continuously with ever greater amounts of money that's becoming increasingly worthless. Have to do it quickly so the great American military can subdue what it can, whilst it can, and stake a claim on it all before the world falls over.
People mistakenly think they can fix everything right now using the very political & social institutions and methods that have lead them to this place. Well it's not going to happen because they're practically all corrupt with only illusions of your participation and energetic activities making it seem as though there's solid progress.
There's progress at smaller levels whereby the focus and attention is more local so corruption is immediately noticed and countered but it's a far cry from being the driving force for overall change required. But when it's all collapsed, that local stuff is what you're going to have to rely upon.
In the meantime, make friends, establish community & cooperation because when money no longer has any real worth, and nobody's working because there's no actual major production going on, there'll be plenty of time to talk things out and perhaps, just perhaps initiate a paradigm change.
Hey Sundome, I think your dome has been out in the sun too long.
Very well said Thalidomide and I would add that the "American Dream" has always been a sham, a lie and a trap only to benefit Capltalism...works great for the wealthy but hurts the poor. Look to the political changes in Central and South America and one can see that there are many other ways to live...where inequality isn`t as great as it is in the USA.
It does seem a case of Eyes Wide Shut! really why should every American need to OWN! 2.5acres of land, Drive a car bigger than a two bedroom house, and kickout 4+ kids?? it makes no sense! then eat 10,000 calories a day as a gods given right!?!?
I've been here 46yrs and I swear I'll never understand America!
>^^<
What exactly is the American dream? I thought it was the ability to live in a land governed by our constitution, which protects our rights to live individual lives with the a right to privacy over our homes and bodies. When did it become 2.5 acres and 4+ kids? Even a car in every driveway and chicken in every pot falls short of that.
I've been here 61 years and for the last 10 to 12 I swear something other than evolution is going on. I tend to think of it as marketing skew.
When Republicans say they will lower taxes they always do - for the rich - while cutting social programs that taxes fund - like police and fire. I wonder if Obama is going to run as a Republican in the next election since he's proven he makes a great one.
Sundome--
The reason that the Republicans can't field any credible candidates for president is that Barry is the best Republican president they ever had.
The Republicans just filibustered a bill that would have eliminated the $9 billion a year in tax subsidies that U.S. oil companies currently enjoy.
How's that "teach the Dems a lesson by not voting in 2009" thing workin' out for ya so far?
What election was held in 2009? Must not have been aware of it. I've voted in the US since 1966.
If you're still believing that by voting for the Dems you're getting representation of what is best for you and your family and friends, I recommend waking up...
Whoops. Make that 2010!
I have always said, and will continue to say, that the Dem party in general and president Obama in particular are supreme disappointments.
On the other hand, there are many individual Democrats whom I like ... not such a bizarre concept, but one that seems to go over the head of most people on this blog, for reasons I've never understood. (The ability to understand "nuance" is usually a strong point for leftists, and a handicap for conservatives).
My point being that if socialists and progressives got active, I still believe they could push the Democratic Party back to the left ... much as the Tea Partiers have succeeded in pushing the Republicans (even farther) to the right.
Or maybe I'm wrong, given the corporate stranglehold on Washington, the Citizens United decision, shallow and sensationalistic 24-hr cable news, etc. But not to even try to push the Dems to the left seems like a lame cop-out. If the only viable alternative is to continue getting 1.3% of the electorate to vote for Ralph Nader, we're in for one long shitty ride to nowhere.
It seems if one actually wants to begin reversing the massive shift in wealth to the very wealthy, a logical place to begin is to elect people who will at least entertain repealing the tax credits to oil companies, and vote for reducing the tax breaks for millionaires, and vote to reduce defense spending.
So you give those folks the political cover of a loud and supportive electorate, and vote in more and more of them. Fifty billion dollars here, fifty billion dollars there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money.
None of those people are Republicans. Some of those people are Democrats. That's all I'm saying. Don't put words in my mouth.
BTW, Peggy -- I'm glad to hear that at least YOU vote.
Good cop, bad cop.
Same difference.
Donny-Don, I sympathize with “there are many individual Democrats whom I like,” but I believe independents (I’m one) now outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. Although surprisingly the evidence seems to show independents recently voted more Republican than Democratic, there were no other real choices. Independents might go for an independent candidate.
Wikipedia tells us regarding Ross Perot’s independent candidacy in 1992,
“Perot largely financed his own campaign and relied on marketing and wide grassroots support to spread his message. In certain polls, Perot led the three-way race with Republican nominee George H. W. Bush, the incumbent President, and Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, the Democratic nominee. He dropped out in July 1992 amid controversy, but reentered in October, and surpassed the 15% polling threshold to reach his goal of participating in all three presidential debates. Despite an aggressive use of campaign infomercials on prime time network television, his polling numbers never fully recovered from his initial exit. On Election Day, Perot appeared on every state ballot as a result of the earlier draft efforts. He won several counties and finished in third place, receiving close to 19 percent of the popular vote, the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.”
Perot was a very weak candidate. For example (again quoting Wikipedia), “Perot claimed during an interview with 60 Minutes that ‘Republican operatives’ also threatened to disrupt his daughter's wedding, which forced him to withdraw in July.” That he still managed a 19% showing is remarkable.
Only 63% of eligible voters participated in 2008. Progressives, in an organized effort, could select candidates for national office (elected or appointed) who would run independently, or as members of a new party. The goal would be to motivate a close to 100% turnout of progressives (that might constitute 10% of the people who actually vote) and pull in enough independents and Democrats to get into the 30's. If the progressive candidate didn’t make mistakes like those of Perot, and had the stamina and charisma Nader lacked the last few times he ran (Nader could have an honored place in the campaign, but not as the lead candidate), and if Obama continues showing weakness, there’s a chance of winning. But time is running short.
You should be very suspicious of anything you read on Wikipedia. It appears it is now a major source of manipulated propaganda.
http://boingboing.net/2011/03/17/us-military-launches.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bojN26iNKdc
Perot never actually thought he could be elected, he only sought to affect the election.
gardenernorca, Of course (by the way, I couldn't get your link to come on). But I, and I wager most progressives, actually remember the events discussed in the Wikipedia article. And affecting the election is nothing to apologize for. Even if a progressive slate got only 19%, or polled at that level, it would be a major accomplishment that would probably motivate both major parties to move away from conservative positions. That sure would beat another dismal campaign like Nader's.
This time around, if Obama gets the Democratic nod, the worn-out refrain that a vote for _____ could cause a Democratic loss would appear even more ridiculous than it was when made against Nader in 2000, when Bush lost to Gore thanks to the Supreme Court, not Nader.
I'm totally serious about this. An organized effort to pit 20 or so progressive possibilities, including women and minorities, against each other in town hall meetings across the nation could result in the emergence of someone at the top with qualifications greatly exceeding those of recent independent or third party candidates, while giving the voters a look at others who might populate a progressive cabinet. Getting on the ballot in all states could be the stumbling block if we let the clock run out.
I remember how George McGovern caught on in 1971. If a couple of things had fallen into place, such as Watergate coming to the surface earlier and an inadequately vetted Thomas Eagleton not having been picked for VP, the outcome would have been very different.
Manning, I like your vision, and I agree that a good showing (e.g. 19%) by a truly progressive candidate could have a big impact on Washington politics. But I remain somewhat mystified by this obsessive focus on the U.S. presidency.
Wouldn't it be more feasible and more do-able for true progressives and socialist candidates to begin picking off Democrats from "safe" Democratic seats in various liberal and urban districts across this country? Then we would actually have more "real" voices in D.C., rather than just "threaten" having one bully-pulpit voice?
The U.S. president doesn't make laws, anyway. Even the most progressive president imaginable could only do so much without a sympathetic Congress backing him or her up. Nader could pull us out of Afganistan quickly, and begin enforcing federal laws (e.g. financial, environmental) aggressively, but if Congress wanted to stop him in his tracks they would quickly withhold funding and repeal those very laws he's trying to enforce.
So, I still think a "bottom up" approach for electing more socialist candidates locally and regionally makes far more sense.
Unfortunately, that requires a lot of time-consuming and unglamorous work educating people, building coalitions with people who don't agree with you 100% on the issues, shilling for candidates, and getting out the vote. Not as much fun as taking pot-shots at politicians on blogs like this.
Donny-Don, you have a point. But there is a coat-tail effect.
Presentations like this video, produced by conservatives, have helped run our country into the ground. It's about time someone used the same method to present the other side! I'm bookmarking it.
What do you think the "other side" of this argument is?
sj
The side presented by the video. Was I not clear?
True points made, but this video for some off reason chose not to include the most glaring injustice made to the US taxpayer and lower-middle classes;namely the bloated Pentagon budget---endless wars, billions upon billions in aid (to Israel) & hush money(to AfPak).
Did you know that fuel is priced over 50 dollars USD a gallon in Afghanistan??? (for the US military, of course).
The military uses a tremendous about of oil, and the expenditures for these past 10 years are more than tax cuts for the rich.
But the price of that oil is what made a lot of them richer or richer, you think they should be taxed on that?
We Americans are all too plugged in to the system. We feed it and encourage it. I just read an editorial in our local paper. It said that in order to provide more employment for suffering people, we need to give the corporations what they want: more tax breaks, more incentives and fewer prohibitive restrictions and regulations. And UNEMPLOYED CITIZENS AGREED! (online edition)
First, we need to wake up. Then we need to begin to disengage. Home school the kids. Start your own business. Help your neighbors. Buy second-hand. Bike.
As we gradually and deliberately disengage, we can leave that broken system an empty shell. But if you are brainwashed into thinking the only hope for you and your family is in the benevolence of your employer, it makes no sense to disengage. I think the hardest part is having people I would like to respect looking askance at me as if I am doing my best to be just like them and failing at it. They pity me because I educate my own kids, I run my own business, I try to grow my own food, and I give my money where my heart leads me, not to the church coffers.
It is lonely being a one in ten thousand. At least until we connect with some like-minded people. The saying is that a sighted person will be a king in a land entirely populated by blind people. But these blind are not looking for a sighted person; they are quite content as frogs in a slowly boiling pot. Sad.
This video could help wake the slumbering...