Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
Popular content
Today's Top News
You Can't See the Boarded-Up Schools From the Mansions
The long-term effect of shutting down schools, going to a 4-day school week, and cramming 40 students in a classroom is too unpleasant to imagine. But easy to ignore if you can afford enough acreage to block the view.
Everyone's feeling the pain, they say. Really? Consider these facts:
(1) In 1980 the richest 1% of America took one of every fifteen income dollars. Now they take THREE of every fifteen income dollars. They've TRIPLED their cut of America's income pie. That's a TRILLION extra dollars a year. That's 1/7 of the whole pie, in addition to what they had before.
(2) One man (hedge fund manager David Tepper) made $4 billion last year, enough money to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City. Based on income figures, he is 50,000 times more valuable than the police officer or firefighter who comes rushing to your house in an emergency.
(3) If the bottom 90% of America had shared in our country's prosperity at a level consistent with 1980 incomes, the average family would be making $45,000 a year instead of $35,000.
These are well-documented facts, taken from the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, and the Congressional Budget Office.
Our children will be paying the price of a free-market philosophy that doesn't have the sense to regulate greed. Plenty of studies show the adverse effects of inequality on the stability and health of a society. And our children don't have to wait to feel the effects. Many of them come to school on Monday mornings anxious for their first full meal in three days.
And it's not just the schools. Essential police and firefighting forces are being reduced. Low-income people traveling to their jobs on off-hours take the brunt of transit cutbacks. We're seeing cutbacks in after-school programs in low-income areas and reductions in library hours and park services. Plus, of course, increases in state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, cigarette taxes, utility costs, license fees, parking meter rates.
The usual response is that the wealthy deserve what they earn. But while they tripled their cut of the pie, they didn't work three times harder than everyone else. They benefited from financial deregulation and tax cuts, opportunities way beyond the lives of the families with kids in public school.
Supporters also say the rich will re-invest in industry, providing benefits for all. They said this in 1980. The current level of inequality is equivalent to that of the Great Depression.
Or they say the "wealth tax" and the "death tax" is unfairly targeting the rich. The new tax proving for health care is a relative slap on the wrist. The estate tax affects about 5,000 previously untaxed estates, owned by the richest 1/100 of 1% of American families.
Or they say the rich are suffering, too. But a 2010 Merrill Lynch-Capgemini world wealth report states that the rich (millionaires and above) in North America increased their wealth 18 percent to $10.7 trillion.
We're letting this happen to our society because people don't know the truth. Many of those arguing against government regulation are poor themselves. In many ways, big government IS a problem. And capitalism may be the best economic system. But we've failed to find a compromise. Extreme inequality shows that.
Several states have implemented more progressive tax systems. Oregon recently passed Measures 66 and 67, which impose modest income tax increases on the wealthiest residents and raise the corporate minimum tax for the first time in 80 years. A 2008 study by Princeton University determined that "the 'half-millionaire tax,' at least in New Jersey, appears to be an effective and efficient revenue-generation mechanism, having little impact on migration patterns among half-millionaire households." Similarly, little adverse effect of higher taxes was found in Maryland or Oregon. And a study by the California Budget Project revealed that the number of high-income households actually grew during periods of higher income tax rates for top earners.
Progressive taxes worked from the 1950s through the 1970s. And a fair approach now would mean that 90% of us should not be taxed. We just need to get back our piece of the pie.
- Posted in
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...



7 Comments so far
Show AllBuchheit: "The usual response is that the wealthy deserve what they earn" Of course they do. They deserve to live too, but will die someday anyway. Life isn't fair, it never has been. So, if you are stuck with the essential unfairness of life, and need to build a civil, intelligent society anyway (why add our uneducated unfairness to that of life?), then, as John Dillinger indicated, you need to go where the money is.
Taxing the rich extra is not about fairness, its about pain. They don't feel it. The poor feel destitution and ignorance much more. Societies that refuse to feel the pain of the poor eventually pay for it in harsh, brutish conditions and general incivility. When such brutes eventually are able to make the broader society 'feel their pain', the results are cataclysmic. Think French Revolution. Think Russian Revolution. But when you exact pain from the rich they don't feel it. You would have to cut much deeper than is normally proposed for the rich to feel the pain of helping build a more civil society.
How screwed up is modern America? Many if not most of the rich agree with me. They have lobbying groups, trying to get Congress to, in effect, tax them more. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are out lobbying their fellow billionaires to give to charity more generously. This is one scr*wed up society, when it gets that bad.
But, the rich HAVE to be taxed as a group, together, because money, for them is about power, not luxury, and if any one of them gives more than the others, he gives up power to his peers. The rich are willing to part with their money, but not with their (relative) power compared to their peers. Hence, they want to and must be taxed en mass, or not at all.
No one "earns" four billion dollars in one year or a hundred.
I prefer the terms "rakes in" or "takes in" or "appropriates to self".
Joe
We all live in Reagan world now. The class war Ronnie started 30 yrs. ago is over and we've obviously LOST. Obama is confirmation of our complete & utter defeat.
"Progressive taxes worked from the 1950s through the 1970s"
Just not enough for the rich - they want everything.
" free-market philosophy that doesn't have the sense to regulate greed. "
Not regulating greed is the whole point of "free-market philosphy" aka public relations sloganeering to justify wholesale theft from the public.
"In many ways, big government IS a problem. And capitalism may be the best economic system."
Whew! You scared me; for a minute there I thought you were going to advocate radical change.
If anyone is interested in investigating the facts given in this article: The State of Working America, published by the Economic Policy Institute. It's a biennial publication that I heard about via Chomsky. They give these same numbers, and more incendiary ones as well, alongside their analytical commentary. Caveat Emptor - if you read it you're likely to get pissed at rich people, just like I did.