Wealth Distribution and U.S. Politics

[Time for change]

Virtually every federal, state, and local statute in the United States affects the distribution of wealth among U.S. citizens – some much more than others. Since this is an issue that affects the well being of almost everyone, it is an explosive political issue which is bound to sway the results of any national election in our country.

The idea for this post came to me as I was listening to the comments of C-SPAN callers earlier this week. The comment that focused my interest was from a Republican caller who complained about taxing the rich. To paraphrase his comments, he said: Income redistribution is Socialism and Communism. It is ridiculous to penalize those who work hard and are productive in order to benefit those who do not work hard and are not productive. He also noted that he himself had only a moderate income, so his comments were based on principle rather than on self-interest.

That is a standard right wing argument, but it is a powerful argument, and liberals need to be prepared to address it forcefully in order to prevent it from being used destroy their electoral prospects. The reason it is a powerful argument is that, in the abstract, the argument is compelling to the great majority of people. I am a liberal, and yet the conclusion of the caller is compelling to me – in the abstract. I believe strongly that people should be rewarded for their hard work because that is the fair thing to do. I also believe that people should be rewarded for their productivity even if they don’t have to work hard in order to be productive (so long as their “productivity” provides benefits to people), because that encourages people to be more productive, which benefits everyone. I believe that the great majority of liberals (as well as moderates and conservatives) agree with those statements.

But the problem with the caller’s statement is that, compelling as it appears to be in the abstract, it is based on highly questionable and false premises. Yet the issue is very complicated, so it is difficult to concisely explain the invalidity of the premises, and almost impossible to do so in 30 second sound bites. That is what I would like to address in this post. But first I need to talk about the importance of how the issue is framed.


The framing of the so-called “wealth re-distribution” issue in U.S. politics

Douglas Schoen is a self styled “moderate” Democrat and pollster who wrote a book called “The Power of the Vote”, which is mainly about his experiences as a pollster and Democratic strategist. Though the book contains some interesting and perhaps insightful information, it is one of the most self-serving and bombastic books I’ve ever read. Throughout the book Schoen strives to convince his readers of the importance of polling, and at the same time set himself up as our country’s most insightful pollster.

Since he believes that everything in politics revolves around polling, he disparages George Lakoff’s ideas on the importance of framing as “laughable”. In a similar vein he disparages liberals and their ideas on so-called “wealth re-distribution”. He says:

In a display of truly marvelous historical myopia, some Democrats argue that the party is losing elections because it has lost touch with its populist roots. Rather than seeing Al Gore’s populist, “the-people-versus-the-powerful” stance in 2000 as a mistake, this camp seems to believe that if only the Democratic Party was even more populist, then lower- and middle-class voters would return to the Democratic fold…

The re-distribution of wealth is precisely what many Democrats seem eager to do. Whatever its merits as policy, as a political strategy, this is seriously misguided. Only 26% of voters believe that government should pursue policies that redistribute wealth from the richest to the middle class and poorest.

Well, duh! Doesn’t he realize that when the question is framed as “re-distributing wealth”, of course most people are going to be against it? The use of the word “re-distribute” implies that money is taken from rich people and given to other people.

Talk about myopia. Here we have a political pollster who seems blissfully unaware that the manner in which poll questions are framed helps to determine the responses to them. Yet he couldn’t possibly be unaware of this. Whether consciously or unconsciously, he frames the issue in accordance with Republican talking points, undoubtedly with the intention of casting so-called “wealth distribution” in a negative light. Thus he gives credence to George Bush’s rationale for decreasing taxes on the rich, which is: “It’s your money”.

One of our country’s most obnoxious and dangerous right wing presstitute, Tim Russert, works in a similar manner. Whenever he has anyone on his show who advocates some social program which would benefit the poor, the working class, or the middle class, his line of questioning goes something like this: But where are you going to get the money for that? … You’re not going to raise taxes, are you?!!

His purpose is to put his guest in a bind. If s/he says that s/he’s not going to raise taxes, then the implication is that s/he’s fiscally irresponsible. If s/he says that s/he is going to raise taxes to pay for the program, that scares people over the possibility of having their taxes raised. And if s/he says that s/he is just going to raise taxes on the wealthy (i.e. reverse the Bush tax cuts), then Russert will accuse them of “class warfare”. It’s a lose-lose-lose proposition.


The concept of so-called “wealth re-distribution”

As I said in the opening sentence in this post, virtually every statute affects the distribution of wealth. Taxes are the most obvious example. Other examples include any social program which requires government money for its operation, or any statute which either facilitates or hinders the ability of a corporation to make profits. A law which provides health insurance to poor children means that for every dollar used to pay for health care for a poor child, some of that money is going to have to come out of the pocket of a billionaire. And a law that allows corporations to pollute our environment without having to pay any consequences means that some Americans will have to suffer the consequences while others acquire more wealth.

Should all of these laws be referred to as “wealth re-distribution”? To answer that question, consider the alternative. If a government were to attempt to function without any statutes that affected the distribution of wealth, there would hardly be any statutes on the books at all. We would virtually be in a state of anarchy.

Therefore, the question we should ask ourselves is not whether or not a society should have laws that affect the distribution of wealth in society. There is no alternative but anarchy to that. The question should be rather how the laws should be constructed as to be fair and to benefit the most numbers of people. After all, a government should represent the interests of its people. So in a democracy the people should have a large say in the laws that its government enacts. None of that should be controversial in a democracy.


Whose money is it?

When George Bush uses the “Its your money” talking point to rationalize his cutting taxes on the rich, the implication is that rich people have the advantages they enjoy because they have earned it. End of discussion. It’s their money.

This line of reasoning ignores the fact that wealthy people (and other people as well) are able to accumulate the money that they do largely, or almost totally, because of the legal structures that underlie our government. Corporations acquire their charters from the government, and those charters give them a whole host of legal rights; they use laws enacted by government to conduct all their business affairs; they use government funded infrastructure, such as roads, airports, airwaves, electricity, fire and police protection, the courts, etc. to conduct virtually all of their business; sometimes they receive direct funding from the government as well. And some, such as Halliburton and Blackwater, rely on war for much of their wealth.

Thus, they have their money and all that it represents only because of government statutes that facilitate their accumulation of money. Yet, if our government, which is elected by the citizens of our country, decides to change the laws in a manner which proves less favorable to them and more favorable to some other people, the right wingers will cry “class warfare” and whine that the government is “taking there money” from them. The implication of this line of reasoning is that the laws currently on the books that enabled these people to accumulate their money are the only laws that are consistent with a “free” and fair society. Nothing could me more disingenuous in reality, though many of those who do the complaining may be blissfully unaware of how disingenuous it is.

So yes, it’s their money. But we should all recognize that it’s their money only because our current laws have facilitated and allowed it to be that way.


What is fair?

Once we recognize these facts it should be obvious that if our government changes our current laws in a manner which affects the distribution of wealth in our society, the knee jerk complaint of the right wing that this is tantamount to “stealing their money” or “Communism” or “class warfare” is highly disingenuous. The much more appropriate way to look at the situation is to ask whether or not the revised laws are fair, and how beneficial are they to most people. The mere fact that they change the status quo does not mean that they represent “class warfare” or “stealing money from the rich”.

So what is a fair when it comes to laws that help to determine the distribution of wealth in a society? I would suggest the following principles. These are just my opinions, but I doubt that they differ much from most liberals or from most people in general. I suggest that laws be constructed so as to facilitate:

 People earning wealth in proportion to how long and hard they work
 People earning wealth in proportion to the societal benefits that they produce
 People who are incapable of productive work receive at least enough money to provide the necessities of a fulfilling life

What about the balance between how hard one works and how much one produces? Some people are capable of producing a lot more in a short period of time than are other people. What if someone invents something that substantially improves the quality of life for millions of people, and in return receives enough money to live well for the rest of her life without doing any more work? Is that fair? I’m willing to say that it is because I believe that in the long run all of society will benefit by providing strong incentives for people to create things that benefit society.

There are many different categories of people who are incapable of productive work. These include children, people who are significantly disabled and people for whom society offers no work.

Children should not have to suffer because they have parents who can’t provide for them, whatever the reason. Society should provide all children enough opportunities that they can make a good life for themselves.

Nor should people suffer because society has no work for them. I’m not saying that the unemployed should be paid the same money as people who work. That would provide incentives not to work. But what’s wrong with the government providing work for people, so as to keep unemployment to a minimum. Certainly there is plenty of work to be done, including repair of our deteriorating infrastructure and the provision of health care. The creation of more government jobs would kill two birds with one stone, reducing unemployment and creating much needed services at the same time. There are some very influential people who believe that it’s good policy to prevent the unemployment rate from getting too low. Such policies provide a good source of cheap labor, thereby widening the wealth gap in our country. But I don’t see how anyone could consider that to be fair policy.


Are current economic policies in the United States fair?

The income gap in the United States has been widening under the presidency of George W. Bush, such that as of 2004, the average ratio of annual income of CEOs to their workers was 431 to 1. Certainly the average CEO doesn’t work 431 times as much as their average workers. Do they produce 431 times as much benefit to society? Ok, I’ll admit that I can’t prove that they don’t. But it seems to me that anyone who believes that they do is mighty naïve. Did Ken Lay, for example, produce 431 times as much benefit to society as his average worker? Consider the fact that many if not most CEOs determine their own salary. Why? Because our legal structure enables them to do that. Does anyone really believe that they determine their own salary based on how much benefit they produce for society?

What about laws that enable corporations to pollute our air and water, leaving society to pay the price? What about laws like the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided for subsidies and relaxed regulations for the energy industry, and which many people consider to be corporate welfare for the energy industry? What about the so-called Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which allows the credit card industry to take on the role of loan sharks? What about the Social Security payroll tax, for which people of moderate and low incomes pay a much greater portion of their salary than do the wealthy? What about laws which allow corporate interests to displace people from their homes by acquiring their land? And what about laws that facilitate corporate monopolies; or put up barriers to the functioning of labor unions? One can argue (and they do) that all of these laws provide overall benefits to society which makes all the negative effects worth while. They argue, for example, that an energy industry that is lavishly subsidized by government and unregulated will produce immense benefits for our society. The rationale is similar to the rationale for “trick down economics”.

I don’t claim to know with certainty that none of the laws that I mention above provide societal benefits that outweigh their costs, or that they are all unfair. What I am claiming is that we as a people shouldn’t just assume that laws that enable gross disparities in income are fair simply because they’re legal. Nor should we assume that people are poor because they deserve to be poor.

And I also suggest that in trying to assess the fairness of our laws we consider how they came to be laws.


The role of money in politics

The fact that in our country it is legal for powerful corporations to donate huge sums of money to candidates for high elective office; that this is widely practiced; and that the money provided to our politicians by these corporations gives them a tremendous advantage over their political opponents, means that our elected representatives don’t really represent most of their constituents. Rather, it should be obvious that the wealthy have a very disproportionate say in what laws are enacted in our country. And that of course is a gross perversion of the central tenet of democracy, which is “one person, one vote”. For all practical purposes, the wealthy have much more than one vote because they provide the money that translates into votes for the politicians who do their bidding.

Given that, how can we as a people have any confidence that our elected representatives, especially those who receive huge amounts of money from corporate interests, strive to pass laws that are fair and that benefit society as a whole? Do we really believe that powerful corporations donate to these politicians out of charitable impulses?


How can liberals fight back?

In my opinion, liberals should not take this lying down. They should not shy away from this fight. Specifically they should not allow right wingers to frame the debate by calling their policies such things as “class warfare”, Communism, “re-distribution of wealth”, “soaking the rich”, or whatever.

None of those things are part of the liberal agenda. Rather, the liberal agenda is to get laws enacted that are fair and that benefit society as a whole. It’s that simple. That is largely what liberalism is about. And that’s how liberals should frame arguments about laws that have economic consequences for our society.

A government in a democracy is supposed to represent the people and serve the people. If that means enacting laws that give all people an opportunity for a decent and fulfilling life, while decreasing the opportunity for corporate profits by providing some governmental oversight of their activities, then we the people have the right to demand that our elected representatives do that. If we feel that it is fair that the wealthy pay higher taxes, commensurate with the disproportionate benefits they receive from government, then we have the right to demand that our elected representatives enact laws to accomplish that. That is NOT “class warfare”. It’s using democracy to create a fairer and better society.

[begin_within]

1. Almost everything the Republicans do is class warfare - for the upper class

Yet when someone else tries to fight for their economic interests, Republicans denounce it as "class warfare" as if that's not allowed. But nearly everything they do is class warfare of some type or other.

[pansypoo53219]

5. time

we fought back.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. the issue comes down to either it is we, or it is I

if it is we, then there are commons

if it is I... then it is over

[NYC]

3. I've recommended this thread and bookmarked it.

I can't read the whole post now. Please kick this for the morning crowd. It would be a pity if people didn't read this.

Have you read Ferdinand Lundberg?

[Time for change]

40. No I haven't

What did he write about?

[NYC]

51. The Rich and the Super Rich.

Excellent book, and you can get it online for free.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/030304lberg/030304toc.html

[seriousstan]

4. What EXACTLY is a "fulfilling life"? Exactly.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[leftofthedial]

6. The class War is the only war--the *real* war

The rest is all the undercard

[burythehatchet]

65. exactly. That is why the Repub/Dem division is false and dangerous.

[TacticalPeek]

7. Eat the rich.

:kick:

[Flatulo]

25. If you eat the rich, who will you have for dessert?

[skids]

45. Sycophant pudding. n/t

[Mojambo]

8. I enjoy your posts immensely. Kicked and recommended. n/t

[Time for change]

41. Thank you very much

[SDuderstadt]

9. Bravo!

I believe the continually widening gulf in the distribution of income and wealth is one of the most critical issues we face today and, in fact, threatens democracy. The irony is that the GOP is increasingly anti-government and promotes the myth "I made all this by myself", without recognizing that the accululation of said wealth/income would not even be possible without our systems and government. Their myopia allows them to rationalize their claim that the tax burden falls disproportionately on them. I have been reading a lot on democratic capitalism by Charles Kelly as a starting point on how to address this issue and highly recommend his writing.

[Time for change]

43. Yes, it is indeed a critical issue

In order to maintain the widening gulf they have to resort to the promotion of a whole system of myths and spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to propagandize them to the American people.

I'm afraid that as they find their propaganda less and less effective they're planning on resorting to other methods. This administration really scares me.

[gateley]

10. K&R nt

[ChiciB1]

11. GREAT POST... Long But Informative... However, I Think I Heard On KO's

show tonight from Howard Fineman, who I DO consider a "left-leaner" more so than many, actually state that Democrats even after winning in 2006 are "AFRAID" and "TOO SCARED" of holding The Decider's feet to the fire because THEY ARE AFRAID of being perceived as WEAK!

And what he said is TRUE, and I feel I no longer "fit in" with the Democrats of today! I see no real strength or unity in THIS Democratic Party and must now admit I don't know where to go! Becoming an Independent would leave me somewhere out wandering around looking for a place to fit in! Independents are Independents and the people who don't "bind" together as a group, or even have Representative leaders. Independents seem to be drawing many more people to them and are the votes BOTH parties want to reach and sway them to their side.

I too watch Washington Journal and have been hearing not only repukes but MANY Democrats jumping ship because they feel lost and disgusted with what has happened in this place called America! I took an on line Political Poll today and was asked which Party I belonged to, and since I'm registered as a Democrat, that was my answer. But the next question threw me when it asked if I was a "strong" Democrat or "weak" Democrat. I have always considered myself a strong Democrat and that was my answer because it was a POLL! But "my strong" does not mean that I'm STRONG for the Democrats I see today! They are "weak" Democrats but my answer is going to be recorded as if I support what they are doing and represent! This is what I call a conundrum and my answer will be tallied as some number to some question that in fact will be construed as "strong support" for Democrats!

I am a strong Democrat, but what we have are weak Democrats who have left one of the worst Presidents I have ever seen "roll" them and "out fox" them most of the time!

So being a person who has been a long time activist from the Viet Nam era, I don't know WHAT I Am or where I belong anymore! I'm no DLC and I see how so many Democrats have morphed and meshed closer to the other side of the aisle, because they now follow the money too, simply to say they won some "victory" in an election, but only pay "lip-service" to those they represent then leave us hanging.

This is one of the MAIN reasons I can't support Clinton because MSM has declared her as "the winner" when in fact far too many so called Democrats will cling to the person who has the MONEY to bombard them with all the ads THAT MONEY can buy! 30 second sound bites and a rallying MSM does sell and it sells BIG TIME to those who don't have the time to dig for certain truths. Mainly because many are working their butts off to make ends meet! They don't blog and so many don't even know who their own representative is! They're just working class people, and they're getting the short end of the stick and don't even know it! They aren't people who belong to DU or other web blogs!

And now, even I don't know where I BELONG!

[Time for change]

46. This is a very difficult time for most of us here at DU

From the high of the victory last November, we see that the Democrats who took control of Congress appear to be content to see our Constitution torn to shreds -- or rather they just don't have the courage to do what the probably know should be done. It's a sad and scary time.

In my last post before this one I wrote about that in some detail:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2131077

[Froward69]

12. K&R

a bit long

[provis99]

13. I don't call it "wealth redistribution" I call it "theft recovery"

The rich have been robbing the other 99% of us for thousands of years. Here's where the right-wings argument fails. They argue that the hard working shouldn't have their income taken and given to the less productive. Sounds good, except they are making the implied assumption that the rich are those who are hard working. They aren't. The poor are the hard working, and they have already had their earned wealth appropriated from them by the wealthy through unequal distribution of market bargaining power, unequal access to levers of power, rigging of the legal system to favor those already rich, and the general vast conspiracy of the rich 1% against everyone else. The wealthy are essentially thieves, since anyone who's studied modern economic theory at a college level realizes that in a truly capitalist economy, where no one producer or buyer dominates, we all have roughly equivalent incomes. Larger incomes only incur because of market failures or violations, such as monopolies and oligopolies. Thus, the rich are only rich because they're crooks.

I think people basically have a right to get their money back from thieves, which is what almost all rich people essentially are. The only rich people that aren't thieves are those who inherit their money (in which case, they didn't earn it though hard work), or they won it gambling (which I don't call work, either, merely luck). All the rest are thieves.

[flashl]

14. I strongly agreed.

An individual would have to be living under a rock to be unaware of the organized looting that is in overdrive today and operates under the guise of governance.

Is this state of endless robbery the "hard work" the fleeced is misunderstanding? What type of “hard word” demands $10,000 an hour?

This dribble comes from the same people who pretend that slavery ended in U.S.

[StrongBad]

27. Sorry, I gotta quibble

Although I do agree that there are a fair amount of rich people that got rich either by luck or deception, a very sizable portion (in fact I'd say greater than 50%) get rich legitimately through innovation and ingenuity (this includes investors, not gamblers - there IS a difference). Notice that I didn't say "hard work"

See, it is very true that the poorest work hard but it is an absolute fallacy that hard work alone will get you anything but a pat on the back. It is purpose driven worked backed by business and financial acumen that create wealth. This sort of stuff isn't taught in schools which is why so many struggle to keep afloat.

I'm assuming that by theft you mean the traditional Marxian interpretation of profit as surplus value created by labor. I'm sorry to break the news that although many Marxian ideals still hold and are valid critiques of capitalism, the value theory of labor just isn't one of them. So there's no need to continue purporting wealth creation as theft - for it is merely a return on an investment and the reward applied to an action of calculated risk taking.

[Time for change]

38. I agree with most of what you say here

But I don't think it's fair to say that almost all rich people are thieves. Take for example the Democracy Alliance, which is a group of about a hundred billionaires who devote their organization to advocating for and funding progressive causes.

And then probably most rich people, like most other people, are not very political. They may make money in a system that is unfair, but they didn't create that system. It's there and it offers them the opportunity to make money, so they use it, never thinking about the fairness of it. As far as they're concerned, it's legal, so they don't see any reason to think that it's not fair. They just don't give it much thought.

Anyhow, I don't think it helps our cause if we talk about all (or almost all) rich people as being thieves. I think that rather it is good enough to point out the unfairness of the system and work towards changing that.

[H2O Man]

15. Once again,

you post the type of article that makes DU an important source of information, and a place where the best information is used as a foundation for progressive thinking.

Thank you very much for this. Nominated, of course.

[Time for change]

47. Thank you

That's very nice of you to say that.

[KharmaTrain]

16. Social Responsibility

I encounter many wealthy people or those who feel we're taxed beyond oblivion and it's always interesting to break down the costs with these people.

The fact is we live in a social system where resources MUST be shared for all to survive and the better these systems are shared the better the welfare of society on the whole. We must be willing to contribute what and where we can as a member of this society and how it benefits each person.

Conservatives talk alot about "big government" or "government waste" but then ask them what part of that "big government" should be eliminated. Even better...ask him to show us how his heroes...the boooshies and Raygun did to shrink that government. Next, go for the services and the value. There's defense...but how much defense? Do we need a large corporate power structure that profits from perpetual defense spending. Or even closer to home...police or fire or roads or public health. Should all these services be privatized and "pay-go"...those who pay can have their homes and life protected and those who don't shouldn't? The fun really kicks in...as you throw in social security and medicare and ask if they'd forgo those services or be able to collect unemployment. Then it's someone elses problem, not theirs.

The bottom line is Repugnicans are spoiled children. They think this country only makes money and shouldn't spend it. That services should just appear and we'll figure out how to pay for 'em later. That the poor "deserve" their fate and are hopeless rather than seeing how improving their health, education and safety enables them to become more productive. It's selfish greed pure and simple.

[TalkingDog]

17. THE ONLY WAY IT WILL WORK: You have to appeal to their own self interests.

Look,

If you want to make this work by appealing to their "better nature"....well Good Luck with that. It's not that they aren't kind. But they are not global thinkers or empathetic thinkers.

Their families matter. Their friends matter. They are essentially mentally and emotionally 12 years old.

How do you get a 12 year old to give up something important? Use analogies and circustances he can understand.

"Timmy, remember when your grandma didn't have any heat? And she got sick?...."

Or "Remember that time you lost your lunch money and couldn't buy any food that day? Remember how hungry you were?"

Every Republican I know thought the government should have stayed out of the Schaivo family's business. All of them had some instance that resonnated with that story. Every Republican I have as friends hold fundraisers for women's shelters, donate food, time, money, labor to people in their neighborhood. People they KNOW.

To reach them, we have to adjust our idea that: "The personal is political" In their instance you have to make it: "These politics are about the people you know." We have to leave behind global ideas of suffering. It is literally too much for them to comprehend and work through. They can't process it in that way.

Our challenge is to encapsulate the global into the specific. We have to adjust our way of communicating to match their perceptions if we want to ask them to surrender something important to them. It's the least we can do.


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Time for change]

54. Yes, we have to appeal to their self-interest

But we also must appeal to their sense of fairness IMO. Remember, we're not just talking about Republicans here -- there are a lot of independents who could go either way. Like the caller who I referred to in the OP, many believe the RW talking points on this issue simply because they've had them rammed down their throats for so long, with liberals not counteracting them for whatever reason. There are many people out there who could be persuaded to reject the RW talking points if someone would explain to them what's going on.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. Also, I think it helps to show just where their tax money is going

A lot of listeners to corporate media believe that all their tax money goes to "welfare" or to "foreign aid" or to "boondoggles."

The fact is that of the general fund (the part funded by income taxes), all but 15% is either military expenditures or interest on the national debt. And these are figures from BEFORE the Iraq invasion and occupation (let's call it by its rightful name).

The continuing occupation of Iraq costs $250 million PER DAY. That's $10.4 million PER HOUR, or about $173,000 per MINUTE. Put another way, that's $2,888 PER SECOND.

Cite those figures, and ask the person how many SECONDS of the occupation of Iraq their annual income tax bill pays for.

Put another way, remind them that the entire annual Amtrak subsidy (an example of government "waste," according to the right-wing pundits) is four days of the Iraq occupation and the entire budget of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is two days of the Iraq occupation.

Put another way, the light rail line running 20 miles from downtown Portland to Hillsboro, Oregon, completed in 1997, cost less ($475 million) than a single B1 bomber did at the time ($500 million).

[Blackhatjack]

18. No corporation, business or individual in this country 'earns a profit' without public assistance...

All taxpayers and citizens help to provide a defensed, safe, and economically viable environment in which 'profits' may be earned by these entities.

To say 'it is your money' is a huge distortion of the role that government plays, and the use of assets government absorbs from the people.

So those 'earning a profit' do OWE others less well off consideration of their needs as well.

[Flatulo]

19. It's all relative...

I make over $100,000 per year as an engineer in the Boston area, and I don't think of myself as rich. I live comfortably and want for nothing, but I was clearly unqualified for any kind of financial assistance to put my son through private college, so I am paying $3,500 per month in tuition for the next... forever. This will essentially deplete my life savings. I'm 51, so I don't have forever to rebuild my nest egg. I could afford to retire at 67, but only if I die at 70.

I also live in a very modest home by the standards of my contemporaries, who all moved into McMansions.

I also pay, cumulatively, about 50% of my income in taxes, which I think is plenty. I am very grateful to live in a society where I don't have to worry about getting taken out and shot at night (well, not yet at least) and the water, sewers and electricity all work as expected. I don't *mind* paying my taxes.

I tend to think of my VP, who makes $250K, as being rich, although I'm sure he doesn't. He surely thinks the CEO, who makes 7 mil, is one rich bastard, while our CEO thinks of other CEOs making $100 mil as being rich.

Going the other way, the lab tech who makes $40K looks at me and says 'that lucky cocksucker - what does he do that makes him worth $100K?

And the guy emptying the trash at $18K looks at all of us and wishes he had our problems.

I fully agree that the CEOs making millions for simply not dying on the job are way overpaid. I just don't know how to make things fair other than by the progressie tax code we currently have.

The problem of the hyper-rich CEO can't be solved by the tax system. There are too many ways to bury income. That problem needs to be fixed in the corporate boardrooms.

[islandspirit]

30. private college?

too bad your child isn't going to a top public school. Our daughter went to Cal at a cost of about $12K per year. I won't go into that much debt to get my child a decent education. There are other alternatives for education and ways for us to spend our money.

[Flatulo]

34. Yes, it's a private school. Ridiculous amount of money, but

there is something to be had from it - the networking, for one thing. People in the business world tend to hire from their alma maters. Also, my son would struggle in a large state school. He needs a low student-to-teacher ratio to learn.

I went to a private technical university (it was only $4K back then, so I was able to pay for it with part-time work - ha, try that these days...), and the degree from that school opened up a lot of doors that would have otherwise been shut.

I'm not going into debt to pay - I'm just depleting my life savings.

[PinkyisBlue]

53. You are lucky you have the ability to pay the tuition for your son at a private university.

The guy making $40,000 doesn't even have the option of paying that kind of money. If his kid doesn't get a scholarship or take out a huge loan, he won't be going to that college, no matter how smart he is.

You also say that the degree from that expensive, private school opened up a lot of doors that would have been otherwise shut for you. That is unfortunate, in that the wealthy are offered advantages the less well-off, who can't afford that school, are not offered. Maybe that's why a mediocre student from Yale, from a wealthy, politically connected family, was able to become president of the USA.

It's unfair that the wealthy elite, just because they're the wealthy elite, are offered advantages that the rest of us aren't. Do you think you are contributing to this view by sacrificing everything to send your child to an elite college?

It's too bad that college has become financially unattainable for many students. You were able to attend a private college by working part-time, whereas so many kids today don't have the option of attending any college, let alone a private one.

[Flatulo]

62. Yes, I was fortunate... but I was also careful with my money.

While many of my colleagues opted for huge trophy homes, I live in a shitty little place that is fully paid for. I have never taken a decent vacation in my life. I'm wearing boots that are about 10 years old and I don't own a suit.

I feel no guilt nor do I apologize for trying to give my son the best education I can afford.

[PinkyisBlue]

79. Your priorities are in the right place.

It's just too bad that graduates from elite, wealthy colleges are offered opportunities that students from less prestigious schools aren't offered, simply because they have attended that college. In today's economy, this serves as a way to keep the wealthy in power, as it's becoming more difficult for a middle-class kid to ever attend a private college. I wasn't picking on you, just venting that America used to be the land of opportunity for all but is becoming the land of opportunity for the wealthy and politically connected only.

[Flatulo]

91. Yeah, I understand... it's got to be frustrating for kids who are

going into massive debt to attend college, only to find that the opportunities may not exist when they graduate.

[shireen]

20. right-wing bullshit

It was right there in paragraph 2:he said: Income redistribution is Socialism and Communism. It is ridiculous to penalize those who work hard and are productive in order to benefit those who do not work hard and are not productive.

So a baseball player with a multi-million dollar salary works harder than a teacher?
A construction laborer doing back-breaking work under the hot sun does not work as hard as a CEO of a big company?

The question becomes, how do you define productivity? How do you define benefits to society?

The rich CEO may be creating jobs to stimulate the economy, but still manages to stash away obscene amounts of money for him/herself while the construction laborer, who helped build˜ the road so the CEO could drive his hummer, can't afford medical insurance.

On my planet, teachers would be millionaires because they perform one of the most productive jobs in society: educating the future generations. Without them, civilization would collapse.

Edited to add:
Good commentary. You should try to get this published at Huffington Post or another prominet blog.

[Time for change]

56. I'd like to hear a Republican try to explain how they think CEOs "produce" more than teachers

Job creation? I'll bet that FDR created more jobs than any CEO ever did.

[phiddle]

21. Rather than "redistributing income" (the right wing framing)

We should define and discuss it as "fair taxation"
We should ourselves define and promote fair taxation along 3 principles:
1. All income should be treated equally--it's not fair that there are lower tax rates for capital gains or dividends than for wage/salary income. Currently income taxes run up to 35%, but cap gains/dividend taxes are capped at 15%. According to citizens for tax justice, those 13,000 taxpayers with aG incomes over $10 million in 2005 got an average tax break of $1,876,280 from this provision alone. A dollar of income is a dollar of income and should be taxed accordingly. (See http://www.ctj.org/pdf/cgdiv.pdf )
2. It is also unfair to tax the minimum wage. Therefore, the personal exemption should be the equivalent of a year's minimum wage, or $13,100 in 2007. (50 weeks x 40 hrs. per week x $6.55 per hour)
3. Unfair that the middle class pays a tax largely escaped by the rich. Take the caps off of the FICA (SS + Medicare) tax. Currently 15.3% of the first (I think) $94 K, Bill Gates pays the same FICA as does a husband-wife team of a teacher and a policeman.

The combination of these 3 features throws the burden of taxation heavily upward, and would provide relief to the lower 95% of taxpayers. With these 3 fundamental changes, we liberals could own this issue, and in the process stay away from the right wing frame of "redistributing income".

[wicket]

24. Great ideas

:thumbsup: Especially FICA. The income cap has never made sense to me.

[TahitiNut]

26. Here's one reason why the FICA income cap makes sense ...

FICA is insurance ... insuring the replacement/continuation of a corresponding income level to that earned by one's labor. It's like insuring a house or car ... the correlation of premiums to the amount insured is the hallmark of any insurance. (Likewise, any insurance premium is used to pay current claimants. It's not a savings account.)

(I won't go into the fact that, as the "bottom 90%" receive less and less of the income pie, we're seeing the 'starvation' of FICA as a SECONDARY effect of the incresing INEQUITY in what people are paid. The rich getting richer and the working poor receiving less and less for their efforts to enrich the rich. The PRIMARY problem is the fact that lower income working people are getting a bigger and bigger screw job - shown by the increasing Gini Ratio.)

Now ... let's say someone with an income averaging $950,000 argues that they're entitled (in equity) to a similarly 'scaled up' benefit. Would we not, then, face the prospect of arguing that it's too great a burden on the system to pay THOSE people OASDI benefits 5 or 6 times as great as the $95,000 earner?

Yes... the intention is that it's a "safety net" ... but the structure is tilted to provide a scale of benefits that are, to some degree, correlated to the payroll levels taxed.

Here's a graph that shows the (Lorenz curve) distribution of OASI benefits in December 2003. The measure of equity in that distribution is NOT flat (i.e. Gini Ratio of zero) ... but it's nowhere nearly as 'bellied' as the payroll distribution upon which it's based, which has a Gini Ratio of somewhere around 0.45. (Note that the bottom 50% of the beneficiaries receive about 33% of the benefits.)




Here's another chart showing a distibution of benefits, perhaps easier for some to understand.

[phiddle]

28. OK, nuancing the FICA cap removal proposal then,

apply a 15.4% across the board tax, crediting the first $15,000 or so to the FICA, reserving it in a trust fund as Moynihan proposed in 1984, and devolving the remaining to general revenues. This, together with treating all income equally would allow a large reduction in marginal income tax rates, to as low as 10% on average.

[Time for change]

59. Those sound like good ideas to me.

[wicket]

22. Bookmarked.

K & R

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Well said. My only comment...

So what is a fair when it comes to laws that help to determine the distribution of wealth in a society? I would suggest the following principles. These are just my opinions, but I doubt that they differ much from most liberals or from most people in general. I suggest that laws be constructed so as to facilitate:

 People earning wealth in proportion to how long and hard they work
 People earning wealth in proportion to the societal benefits that they produce
 People who are incapable of productive work receive at least enough money to provide the necessities of a fulfilling life

I would add that people should not only be compensated for the productive hard work, but also for the risk they take and the investment (in time and money) to be productive in that role.

Risk +
Hard work +
Social benefit +
Investment required = fair compensation

Unfortunately, only investment and risk are currently rewarded by current government policy.

[debbierlus]

29. Yours is an excellent post, it needs to be distilled into the sound bite form

We are in the midst of a class war & the liberals don't need to present a dissertation on the concept...Here are a few off the top of my head...(I wrote these quick, but it gives the idea)

Tax & spend democrats??? Counter...

SPEND & SPEND REPUBLICANS....Tax the CORPORATIONS that bleed the American people dry & give little in return....

MAKE them pay for the infrastructure & benefits they receive from America...NO MORE FREE RIDES FOR THE CORPORATIONS

Workers FIRST, Not CEOs

Get the Lead Out - Stop Importing Chinese - BRING BACK THE UNION LABEL

Yeah, the rich earned it. Just ask Paris Hilton.

Trickle down economics = Rich People's Table Scraps

The Rich are Parasitic: NOT PRODUCTIVE

[phiddle]

31. Stop welfare for the wealthy

Funnel up economics

[ljm2002]

32. It might help if...

...anytime the bugaboo "redistribution of wealth" is brought up, we mention that the redistribution of wealth is well underway, as fewer and fewer people control more and more money and resources.

It wouldn't hurt to point out that trends like this never end well. Never.

[amandabeech]

48. You are so right.

Eventually people get will get so pissed off that they will actually do something.

There are a lot of pissed off people out there now, and it will only get worse.

[Time for change]

61. Yes, that's an excellent point

Wealth re-distribution can go both ways, and lately it's all been going to the rich.

As far as trends like this never ending well, I guess you're talking about revolutions?

[ljm2002]

64. Not only revolution...

...although that is one scenario. Not one that I would like to see -- those rarely end well either.

But another example of things not ending well would be the Great Depression. I would argue that the wealth disparity of the times, similar to today's, contributed to that.

[Time for change]

74. But couldn't one argue that the Great Depression did end well

It motivated the creation of the New Deal, a creation of a whole set of laws that were much fairer and much more beneficial to society than any we previously had. It allowed millions of people to climb out of poverty.

Of course, that's not to say that we shouldn't strive to prevent similar depressions. But sometimes I wonder if that's what it will take to get this country back on track.

[ljm2002]

77. Looks to me like it will take something on that scale...

...to effect real change.

But I wouldn't argue that is a good thing. What would be a good thing, would be if we could keep progressive ideals alive even while we have affluence. Unfortunately, in my experience, the more affluence there is, the more greedy bastards there are who want it all for themselves. Mix that in with our current corrupted culture, where everyone who is not filthy rich wants to be, and identifies with the goals of the super-rich ("no new taxes"), and you have a formula for disaster, which is right where we are headed.

Who knows what form it will take. "History does not repeat itself, it rhymes".

[nannah]

33. the most likely cause of wealth is fortunate birth. what's to reward???

Elements that constitute fortunate birth include:
genetically determined characteristics like intelligence, health, physical characteristics, sensory functions, expressive capabilities - elements that create your ability to interpret the world around you and function within it;

the social and economic conditions of your birth... people tend to remain where they were born. Some work or marry up...

The time and place of your birth, on a world wide scale. this connects to the social and economic situation.

Effort certainly has an effect on what people are able to do, but effort is still bound by the context of the other elements that determine the advantage given by birth.

To reward the most advantaged for their success while assigning failure status to those born without great advantage is one of the cruelest elements of our social, educational, and econimic policies.

[Flatulo]

35. Mmmkay, my dad was an abusive raging alcoholic janitor.

We didn't even have a car when I was growing up. I got the shit kicked out of me more times than I can remember for no other reason than I was the closest one around.

I somehow had the drive and intellignce to do well in public school and get into a good college solely on merit. I busted my ass for half a decade working a part-time job and doing 6-8 hours of homework every night. I entered industry and immediately began working 60 hours per week, and still do so 30 years later.

Nope, nothing to reward there. Move along.

Maybe Darwin was my benefactor, but why shouldn't I make a lot of money, as long as I pay my dues?

[nannah]

37. brains, physical strength, physical health that supported your effort...

these were elements of your success that allowed your effort to pay off; elements of your personality that created your determination.... these can be traced to your genetic being when you were born; its a good thing to have these advantages. This is not about diminishing the value of your effort, but to recognize that people without the benefit of good health, neurologically determined learning abilities that are consistent with current environment, functional chemical and electrical balance in brain and body would not be able to achieve as you have, despite their effort.

That you coninue to have to work 60 hours a week (unless you love your work and would choose to do it without pay) to support your life may speak to the impact of the very unfortunate elements of your birth as you described them. Your effort, coupled with educated, supportive parents may have put you in a very different position.

There is a strongly projected illusion that anyone with persistence can make it to the top of whatever hill they wish to climb. Thus, those who don't charge ahead up the hill are obvious by their presence lower on the hill. Paint those lower on the hill as lazy, un motivated, un fit, etc; pretend all could be at the top with effort. And forget that most of those on the higher levels of the hills were born there.

I have spent many years working as a social worker helping people get income and medical if they become disabled (meaning not able to work). Most of my clients have spent lives working harder than most of us can imagine. That their effort yields the chaos of poverty is the result of elements that were present for them at the moment of their birth. Birth is a very uneven starting point in this world off ours. I;ve always thought a civilized culture would create values that balanced and reflected this reality.

[Flatulo]

63. I think that the spectrum of human achievement probably follows

a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Some people are doomed to be successful by either nature or nurture or a combination of both, and some are bound to be fuck-ups. The rest of us all end up in the middle.

Society has been trying for hundreds of years to skew this distribution, to no avail.

[sorrywrongemail]

66. You need to give people a chance

Society and government was very different 100 years ago, before progressive taxation and a lot of the New Deal programs. The GI Bill, unionization bills, labor regulations.

I'm thinking "Grapes of Wrath" tragedies here. They are unnecessary, and cruel.

These things enabled higher quality public schooling, health care, etc. Government should govern for those who elected it, not leave them suffering so monopolists can get rich.

[Flatulo]

68. Interesting point you make...

Would you say things are better now, opportunity-wise, than they were 100 years ago?

It seems to me that other posters are arguing that the playing field is stacked against the poor, and I would tend to agree. If they are correct, then what exactly did those government initiatives accomplish?

[sorrywrongemail]

70. Ah yes, but they've been undermined

Much of the Great Depression banking laws were dismantled in favor of unsustainable, boom and bust monopolies and recessions.

Antitrust is no longer enforced. The DOJ and FTC follows an old-school Chicago school method that says antitrust chills innovation, which has been discredited BTW. Thus, monopoly and concentration of wealth. Monopoly is not innovation, however, unless regulated through either
1) divestiture
2) regulation

Antitrust for all purposes ended in the 70s-80s.

Free trade is once again a global force. But our current method promotes outsouching that absolutely obliterates the middle class the New Deal built. This has exerted downward pressure on wages (stagnant since 2000), opportunities, and the middle class.

High paying, unionized Manufacturing jobs with benefits exchanged for minimum wage Walmart jobs.
High debts.

The usual statistics people drag out:

"
He recites the now-familiar data that the wealthiest 0.01 percent of Americans are seven times richer than they were three decades ago, while the inflation-adjusted income of most American households has barely nudged upward. Chief executives who typically earned 30 times more than their average employee in the 1970s now take home more than 300 times as much. The American plutocracy, Krugman concludes, “have become rich enough to buy themselves a party” — and readers are left in no doubt which party we’re talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/books/review/Kennedy-t.html

"
No one saw it at the time, but a central manifestation of the freedom revolution that spread across the world upon the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was that First World employers were now free to put their employees in an employment pool to compete for their jobs with about a billion other employees from nations with much lower standards of living, especially China and India. Wages might be being pressured downward, but on the other side of the seesaw, profits were soaring.

As economists Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute put it, "Over prior business cycles, profits (including interest income) have accounted for 23% of the growth in corporate-sector income, on average, with total compensation accounting for the remaining 77%. In the current business cycle, the distribution is almost reversed: profits have claimed nearly 70% of total growth in the corporate sector, while increases in compensation (from increased employment and higher hourly compensation) have received just over 30% of total income growth."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IF22Dj02.html
"

Unsustainable.

So you see, a lot went on since the Great Depression. A dismantling of statues that created a middle class.

The union bill I was referring to, was watered down with the Taft-Hartley Act of the 50s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-hartley_act vs the union empowering Wagner Act of the 30s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

Let's not forget Republican Prez Eisenhower's 91% corporate tax rate, either. Look at tax rates now.

[Time for change]

76. With regard to wealth distribution

I think things are pretty bad now, and they were also pretty bad 100 years ago -- probably even worse than they are now. No child labor laws, virtually no protection of workers at all, little protection against monopolistic practices, almost no environmental laws, no vote for women.

It was the progressive movement of the early 20th Century that gradually made things better, culminating in FDR's New Deal that really made a difference. Compared to the post-New Deal period things are really bad now, and getting worse, as the RW is finally seeing their wish come true of destroying the New Deal.

Edited to say that what I said above would be more accurate if I substituted "105 years ago" for "100 years ago". Things did begin to change for the better under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who become president in 2002.

[nannah]

78. when we were a hairless, prey species,

for a time lasting far longer than at our current level of dominance in the world, we survived and grew into dominance because we were intelligent, knew to band together and cooperate for survival, and agressive.

To successfully adapt to our current dominant species position many great minds have urged us to reduce our reliance on competition and agression in favor of cooperation that supports the survival of all. We don't need to be a fearful, naked prey species any more, nor do we need to continue to act like one.

Our attitude of competition sets in motion the values that label people of unfortunate birth as "fuck ups" while those of fortunate birth as successful. Those of fortunate birth win accolades and honors reinforcing their sense of preimminence. To put this idea into a visual: Imagine two men shooting a basket: one is 10 feet tall, the other is 4'8". Will the 10 footer make more baskets? it's likely. will the 4'8" guy make baskets? sure, some, but not as many as the 10 footer no matter how he tries. does the 10 footer deserve any particular accolade for making more baskets??? no,

I believe that by recognizing that non volitional elements effect all of our lives for good or ill we can become respectful of the lives of all; if we can have the humility to be grateful for our unearned gifts we can cease to judge those not as fortunately born.

[Flatulo]

80. Very insightful, but it still begs the question...

Should I not be more highly compensated because I have special skills that very few possess, and that employers find to be extremely valuable than, say, a convenience store clerk, which is a job that almost anyone can do?

Do some people have, by virtue of nature and/or nurture, more economic value than others? If so, do you think this is wrong? And if so, how do you encourage some people to learn do hard things like brain surgery if all effort is valued equally?

[Time for change]

82. Regarding whether people "should" be compensated for their special skills

In terms of whether they "deserve" to be, that's a deep philosophical question that is very difficult to answer, and probably there are a multitude of different opinions on it.

However, I believe that we have to compensate people for their special skills that benefit society, because that provides incentives that provides the engine for society to progress in a way that everyone benefits. I'm not saying that people won't provide their special skills without additional compensation. But the additional compensation certainly does provide additional incentive that tends to increase peoples' creativity.

[Flatulo]

83. I agree with you... why on earth would someone spend 1/4 of their life

studying medicine or law if, at the end, they just earn enough to have their basic needs met?

As a compassionate society, I think we all agree that basic human needs should be met for everyone, but it is a very slippery slope to propose that all 'underachievers' endure no personal consequence (in terms of living standard) for the choices they make in life, regardless of whether they won or lost the genetic dice roll.

I guess I'm saying that I only belive the 'lucky birth' theory up to a point. Examples abound of people born under the most dreadful circumstances who nevertheless go on to make great contributions. We need a mechanism to reinforce good decision-making and hard work, and money, driven by market demands, seems like it's working in most cases.

Unfortunately, when it comes to executive compensation, market forces have ceased to have any relationship to salaries. Other things are broken when people can earn 1/2 billion per year.

[nannah]

84. at birth characteristics make the difference between the survivor

and the one who fails to meet the challenge. you keep wanting to reward people for their at birth advntages.

Several years ago I volunteered one year in my grandson's kindergarten class. Each week I read with every child in the class. I could see then the huge differences among children's advantages and gifts. One little girl could read like an adult from the first day of class. One little boy never learned to recognize the letters of the alphabet by the end of the year. The girl was praised for her skills; the boy was ashamed of his failure. there was no difference in effort, only in their basic neurologically driven learning ability. but the tenor of their school years is set in motion by that fundamental, non volitional element of their birth advantage or disadvantage. the young man will grow up hearing endless adults demean his motive, effort, and attitude. He is at the starting gate for people who come to see me for help.

this is another unintended consequence of our competitive, agressive culture. when we force competition among everyone, with a nod nod wink wink appreciation for no holds barred, ruthless, competitors we end up with a hard edged society with leaders who cheated and hurt others in their bid for the top. as we are today.

there are more reasons to use your gifts than to grab power and money. And perhaps better ways to use the gifts that were to you, freely given. A culture that embraces coooperation and harmony isn't limited by the need to endlessly develop weapons freeing up all those creative gifts to explore the wonder of our world.

[Flatulo]

85. I respectfully think your premises are wrong...

I don't believe that the particular orientation of the heavens or the goodness or badness of the DNA you inherited is the sole determinator of how successful you will be in life. You seem to be saying that no amount of effort makes the slightest bit of difference, as it is all cast in concrete at birth. Please correct me if I am over-simplifying your premise.

Can you see where this line of reasoning can ultimately lead? Every single last one of us can declare "I am not suited for productive effort" and demand to be fed, clothed, and housed in perpituity. Of whom can one make such a demand? Who will service the needs of so many needy?

> there are more reasons to use your gifts than to grab power and money. And perhaps better ways to
> use the gifts that were to you, freely given.

Allow me to correct you... my knowledge and understanding of physics and engineering were most assuredly not given to me. I paid for them, with cash and total dedication for almost six years of my life. I may have been given the ability to understand such things, but I could have easily chosen to study cake decorating or canoing. Instead, I chose to study something very, very hard.

You're dreaming if you think I will perform my job for compensation equivalent to that of a clerk or a laborer. My job is very difficult and requires long hours of painstaking attention to details. If I make a mistake, it will cost my employer millions of dollars. I would be fired and disgraced. If you doctor makes a mistake, someone dies (yeah, I know... this happens every day anyway... but would you rather have your doctor care for your medical needs, or a convenience store clerk? Most of us would place their faith on the doctor.)

As a free person, you may choose to not pay me for my services, and I would in turn freely choose to not render them, but my employer freely chooses to compensate me. Because of the effort of people like myself, you have access to luxuries undreamed of by previous generations. If you believe that engineers, scientists and researchers bust their collective arss for the greater good ofthe collective, well... I want some of what you're smoking.

In your world, would everyone work to the fullest extent of their ability for the same compensation? I sincerly doubt it. I know I would not.

SO finaly, let me ask you a direct question - you of course can choose to not answer...

Should brain surgeons earn more monetary compensation than convenience store clerks? If so, why?

[nannah]

87. i appreciate that we are having this discussion

I am not demeaning your efforts in any way, nor the value of your contribution. I am trying to say that in a culture that values cooperation and integrity more than competition and ruthlessness, ways to find value for your efforts and abilities flourish. One of the problems for people seeking work today is that many respectable, adequately paying, physical labor jobs have either been off shored or fazed out through technology. Those who where successful in mills, on logging sites, as farmers, as textile workers, as automakers, as fisherman... there are many ways people used to work with their at birth advantages that have been disappearing; at the same time the heirarchy of skills needed for success in US today demand technological and abstract skills that not all have. more people can be productively involved when their is reward for a broad array of skills and abilities. negatively judging those squeezed out of productivity by the changes in our world only makes sense if you assume everyone starts equally, which of course we don't.

It's a bit ironic that we speak of equal opportunity for all, but to really be serious about this we must first address the very real disparity in peoples starting points in order to creat opportunity that could be called equal. or as my boss says, there is nothing so unfair as to treat everyone the same.

[Flatulo]

88. I understand your positon, and I am also conflicted over this...

It troubles me greatly that jobs that used to be able to support a family, like mill work, don't exist anymore. And those unskilled jobs that do exist don't pay enough for people to live at even a subsistence level. Hell, just 50 years ago my father could raise and support a family of five on a custodian's wages. We lived pretty humbly, but we got by.

Is this the inevitible 'end of the road' for capitalism as we know it? Is this the end result of our craving for $29 DVD players and $299 PCs? Will all capital and every job flow to the cheapest possible location to perform that job? Will we produce a generation of college-educated young people who will be competing for jobs that don't exist?

Or will corporations realize that destroying the American middle class is bad for business? Will the American consumer be willing to pay more for locally produced goods?

I wish I knew.

[nannah]

93. thank you for your response...

i don't expect much from the corprations. but i appreciate a forum that allows discussion of some of the cultural pardigms that lock us into conflict solutions.

[napi21]

36. I don't look at taxes as wealth distribution at all!

If you think about it, the wealthy, in most cases use more services than the poor and middle class. ie: A Hummer, SUV, cause the roads to deteriorate faster than a light weight Civic, AND use more fuel that has to be imported, refined, and delivered by a tanker truck that further deteriorates the roads! BIG HOMES use more power and cover more land that further interfieres with the replenishment of our aquifers and fresh water supply. Many many businesses get tax abatements when they move into an area, and lots of times those abatements are for 10 years! Have you ever heard of a middle class individual buying a house and getting a tax abatement????

If we think about ths, there are many more examples of how the wealthy and the businesses of our world really should be paying taxes based upon the resources they utilize. I think it would actually be a pretty fair tax system!



















!

[Time for change]

71. That's an important point

I don't know if it's been quantitated very well, but it probably should be, and it's an important point to make.

[Kansas Wyatt]

39. Re-distribution Has Been Turned Into Wealth Consolidation For The Wealthy Elite

The burden has been placed on all the backs of working class citizens, while the Wealthy Elite and Corporate America have been getting fat at the expense of 'We The People' and have hi-jacked our government to enrich themselves further.

That is the bottom line.... The 'New Deal' has been reversed and the Wealthy Elite think it's payback time. Which is exactly why I do not give a shit if the wealthy in this country were taxed to extinction. After all, that is exactly what the Hell they are trying to do to the rest of us now.

[TimBean]

42. taxes should be based on consumption

If you consume a lot you should have to pay a lot for using those resources.

Taxing production reduces the incentive to produce.
Taxing consumption reduces the incentive to consume.

We live in a country that consumes too much and produces too little.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

50. Of what? FOOD, CLOTHING and BASIC SHELTER?

NOPE!!!

Wow.

"We live in a country that consumes too much and produces too little."

Now, yours is quite a statement when (IF) one considers how much wealth (concentrated in a few hands) this nation has acquired based upon the production of its people. What's REALLY interesting is how the "public treasure" is being spent.

Every stingy, money-grubbing fascist corporacrat MUST CHARGE that, "we live in a country that consumes too much and produces too little." There is no attention, whatsoever, to the actual numbers of impoverished HUMAN BEINGS or un/deremployed Americans or severe absence of opportunity to strive towards economic equality.

TAXING production versus TAXING consumption. If it's that simple, why not volunteer in tyranny? :shrug:

[TimBean]

52. pretty much everything

food? Yes. This is an overfed nation where obesity rates are at an all time high. Go to any Costco for a 100 pack of Doritos on sale and wash it down with a gallon of Pepsi. Both products will be using subsidized corn to make the food cheaper for the consumer. Meanwhile, fresh fruits and vegetables are sailing over the Atlantic.

clothes, I dunno about that one, but have you ever been inside a wal-mart. Aisle after of aisle of cheap disposable crap brought to you by a society that externalizes the cost to the future.

houses? yes. The current housing bust we're in is a direct response to too many people buying too much house on easy credit.

If you still think Americans don't consume too much, drive over to a landfill one day and see what gets thrown away. You might be surprised.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

55. Nutritious food is costly. Paying energy bills is costly.

I am figuring, your post fails to reflect the experience of an individual merely trying to meet basic needs.

As a matter of fact, there is no way your post reflects people working to meet basic needs.

Otherwise, your post wouldn't reference the "housing bust" or "fresh fruits and vegetables,...sailing over the Atlantic."

WHY place BLAME on "a society that externalizes the cost to the future" AND EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE to those determined to manipulate that society and spend every damn dime of it to bankroll their elitist cabal?

How come you place responsibility for society's ills upon those who do their best to survive a human existence in this country, a country CLEARLY controlled by those who hold more powerful resources?

Why?

Why be so judgmental against so MANY human beings for having "faults" while simultaneously EXCUSING absolute barbarianism by those willing to SPEND, without end, ALL human life for money, for oil?

Why?

Perhaps, trading shoes, would bring us closer. Let's try them on.

[TimBean]

58. this I know

but do you know why (WHY?) you sympathize with those paying high energy bills (I'm assuming) while attacking the barbarians who desire oil. Do you know that oil is used as energy (among other things)? Do you know that in order for energy to be cheaper we would need MORE oil, not less.

I am referencing everyone in our society in my post. Are you saying that housing and fruits and vegetables are not basic needs?

[hfojvt]

44. I think it would help if our leading Democrats

stopped falling all over themselves to proclaim 'tax cuts' and stopped shying away from tax increases.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62

When the Russerts ask "Aren't you gonna have to raise taxes to pay for this?" Simply answer "Yes I am, about $50 for every $30,000 in income, but this is a good program that I think most people are willing to pay for."

It's also a matter of principle to me that our taxes need to be more progressive.

[Time for change]

72. Yes, I would love to see them do that

They could change the whole dynamics of this argument. They have to be very assertive with pressitutes like Russert. Like Bill Clinton was in his interview with Chris Wallace.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

49. I only read the 1st 4 paragraphs. Fact is, taxation is collected from the bottom up.

What a majority of people do NOT receive is information about how the system REALLY works.

Taxes on the upper echelon is passed down to all the people who buy from large/huge corporations (in other words, the big corporations NEVER, in a strictly technical sense in spite of the LEGAL sense, EVER actually PAY taxes,...NEVER, EVER). Small business owners NEVER get the benefits of being in the "BIG LEAGUE" and, therefore, are punished to demise.

The percentage of taxes on income is LESS than the combined taxes on energy consumption (and we are all forbidden to EVER KNOW honest accounting on those collections, EVAR!!!!).

As taxes on income decreases, taxes on personal and real property (unless skillfully coordinated as something other than "yours") INCREASES.

Everyone is TAXED for acquiring basic needs like clothing, shelter and yup FOOD (it's just passed down as "cost" to lowly YOU).

You will be taxed for having a means of transportation to your work and for your kids.

You're taxed for having a phone or access to the internet or the capacity to pick up a communication station.

I'm talking about the taxes that are NOT so obvious (and, please, do NOT get me on a rant about how those taxes are, our 'wealth' is RE-DISTRIBUTED).

Hard-working people (and, contrary to RW fiction, represent the VAST MAJORITY of American people) are, IN FACT, taxed to death. Those at the top, the multi-million and billionaires, pay an incredibly small fragment of their lives to live in this country.

I'll read the rest of your post, now.

On second thought, I don't need a second or third dose of reality.

I'm glad you brought up the subject, though.

Thank you, kindly. :hug:

[nealmhughes]

57. "So yes, it’s their money," well, according to Marx, it wasn't!

As the OP states, it is "their money" only because it is so sanctioned by law. Law regurgitated by the haute bourgeois for and by their peers and their "betters," with an occasional bone tossed to the peasants for appeasement's sake.

The WalMart crowd outvotes the Macy's and by far the Neiman's -- alas, in theory only. . . when people are disspirited and the state and local party structure is set up to allow their anointed only to run, then for whom do the workers vote? Certainly usually not their peers, as they cannot afford to run, and can't get party support if they decide to so do.

How do you level a stacked field where the majority of the people are competing with their legs tied together, much less on an incline while the usual suspects -- je m'ajuste, usual candidates -- are unhobbled and their field flat???

[sorrywrongemail]

67. Good point. n/t

n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Polls show trrend towards increased interest in allocating tax monies to the poor.

So, I think that debunks the myth that you have to appeal to self interest. If self interest was all that mattered, the Republican Party would not be able to dupe a bunch of lower and middle income whites into voting for the economic well being of a handful of wealthy white people for the sake of white solidarity. The GOP creates a myth that by voting as a racial clan or block, their base will strengthen everyone within the group, even though only a few actually benefit in real dollars. White supremacy is supposed to empower every Republican.

The Democrats can do the exact same thing, except frame the message in terms of all Americans. When all children grow up healthy, educated, in stable loving families, they become productive workers who keep Social Security solvent. When today's workers have health care, they are more productive, better able to compete with the rest of the world and they do not drain Medicare tomorrow.

As for taxing the rich, remember that the wealthier you are, the more benefits you derive from the government. You have more property and wealth that must be protected by police. You produce more trash. Your children go to more elite public schools. When they get in trouble with the law, they are more likely to receive probation. Your businesses often get tax exempt status to encourage them to locate in a neighborhood. You receive special privileges as a "leader of the community". Your word is valued more than that of a middle income citizen. Politicians do you special favors. Administrative agencies favor the wealthy and corporations. And to add insult to injury, tax structures which tax the middle class and leave more money in the hands of the rich make it even easier for the rich to amass all the power in this country, since the middle class lives on the brink of poverty at all times, unable to set the terms of its own employment or living conditions, completely at the will of the employer.

Since it is employers who benefit the most from having a skilled, healthy work force, this is another argument that can be made for increasing the share that corporations pay towards increasing the general standard of living. It goes without saying that any sensible country will try to keep jobs at home.

[Time for change]

73. Lots of excellent points there

I'm very appreciative to John Edwards for trying to make the poor part of our national dialogue.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

69. Brilliant. Fantastic post.

[lonestarnot]

75. More war! More cheap labor! More corporate welfare! Dat's what Americans need! And what they

want! Dat's why they let puglicons remain in high office, even when they are criminals who were never elected in the first instance. Even if they really believe that it is "fair that the wealthy pay higher taxes, commensurate with the disproportionate benefits they receive from government, then we have the right to demand t!hat our elected representatives enact laws to accomplish that."

[Flatulo]

92. Unfortunately, you're on to something...

What Americans really want is cheap goods. We want $29 DVD players, $500 TVs and $299 PCs. In order to get these goods, it is necessary to produce them in cheap-labor countries.

Would Americans be willing to spend $500 for the DVD player, and $4000 for the PC? That's what these things used to cost before they were manufactured in China.

We seem hell-bent on selling our childrens' future for cheap gadgets.

[GOPBasher]

81. Thank you.

I have always hated that argument from right wingers. You gave me more ammo with which to destroy it.

[Zavulon]

86. I just crossed enemy lines to find out the opinion on this post...

...and basically got what I expected. I printed off your post and showed it to one of those in our office who listen to Limbaugh and Hannity at his desk.

He focused on your "Well, duh! Doesn’t he realize that when the question is framed as “re-distributing wealth”, of course most people are going to be against it? The use of the word “re-distribute” implies that money is taken from rich people and given to other people" and said "of course it it implies that, because that's exactly what is done. The rich aren't funding all of those bullshit programs voluntarily, the money is being taken from them. Leave it to the libs to play word games and skirt the real issue. The rest of this shit isn't worth the paper it's printed on."

He actually turned on his shredder and then said "do you want this bullshit back, or should I shred it?"

So we don't even know what his opinion of the post was - he couldn't be bothered to read it.

[Time for change]

90. Interesting

I wonder what the dittoheads would call it when a CEO awards himself a $5 million bonus. I wonder how he explains that that's not weatlh re-distribution.

[Zavulon]

94. I asked this same guy, just for you. :)

The answer: "Free market. Besides, if he's allowed to do that, you know he made the corporation at least ten times that." When I laughed at him and pointed out cases of CEOs who lose money getting major bonuses, he had nothing to say except "yeah, yeah, there should be nobody making money and government should control everything. I've all the bullshit talking points before, I'm not in the mood, okay? I'm off to lunch, comrade."

Hey, at least he gave me his best fight. :rofl: