DOES THIS SOUND LIKE NAZI PROPAGANDA?
by RICK GEIGER
PREVIEW
This post is a response to conservative attempts to justify and/or minimize the problem of economic inequality in America.
A. The Problem of Inequality
The problem of increasing economic inequality from different viewpoints.
B. A Flawed Solution
Discussion of why an equal distribution of wealth would be a socially unacceptable and impractical solutiion.
C. An Alternative Solution
Presentation of a fairer distribution of wealth involving healthful living, the Common Good, and full employment.
D. Analysis of Alternative Solution
Discussion of the an alternative solution in terms of affordability, a continuing degree of inequality, and morality.
E. Conclusion
I am writing this in response to a Dow-Jones Reprint opinion piece entitled "Ruth Wisse: The Dark Side of the War on 'the One Percent'" (www.online.wsj.com/.../SB...) written by Ruth Wisse, a Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard University, dated 2/3/14. I believe Ms. Wisse is suggesting that movements such as Occupy Wall Street use propaganda comparable to that used by the Nazis against the European Jews; propaganda which "stokes class envy against the 1%". As the reader may remember from history studies, the Nazis blamed the Jews for all the economic problems of non -Jewish German citizens. She is undoubtedly referring to the one percent of American earners who receive 19% of the country's total income and who possess 35% of the country's total private net worth. Her article is another politically conservative attempt to "spin" the problem of increasing economic inequality in America in such a way that the victims and those who stand by them look like the "bad guys", the troublemakers, the ones trying to make much ado about nothing.
A. THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
I don't blame the nameless 1% for economic inequality in America. It's not even the fault of the Upper Class. An explanation of class distinctions based on economic income can be found in Section
A, subsection 1 of my Plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com. Section D of that post explains the root cause of the growing economic disparity in America. Even though the Upper Class is not solely responsible for the unfair degree of economic inequality, this condition cannot be corrected without the full willingness and cooperation of the Upper Class.
There are conservatives that use statistics to try to "prove" that economic inequality is actually decreasing. They point out that while wages may have decreased for some earners, other benefits like health care coverage have increased. I suspect that is little comfort to the 93% of American households whose net worth decreased between 2009 and 2011 while the higher 7% were increasing. (For more information about the changes in net worth refer to my post on Plutocracy, Section A, subsection 2 at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com.) I doubt that that alleged decrease in the income gap will help the 1.5 million poor American households whose daily income before government benefits is less than the minimum income an American billionaire receives every fifteenth of a second of every day.
I suspect that most Lower and Middle Class Americans if presented with the facts about economic inequality in this country would be willing to admit that there is a condition of economic inequality in this country. For evidence of increasing inequality refer to Section A of the blog post mentioned above.A, subsection 1 of my Plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com. Section D of that post explains the root cause of the growing economic disparity in America. Even though the Upper Class is not solely responsible for the unfair degree of economic inequality, this condition cannot be corrected without the full willingness and cooperation of the Upper Class.
There are conservatives that use statistics to try to "prove" that economic inequality is actually decreasing. They point out that while wages may have decreased for some earners, other benefits like health care coverage have increased. I suspect that is little comfort to the 93% of American households whose net worth decreased between 2009 and 2011 while the higher 7% were increasing. (For more information about the changes in net worth refer to my post on Plutocracy, Section A, subsection 2 at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com.) I doubt that that alleged decrease in the income gap will help the 1.5 million poor American households whose daily income before government benefits is less than the minimum income an American billionaire receives every fifteenth of a second of every day.
Some would say that the problem is much worse in other countries. Do they think it is better to throw band aides at the neighbor's wounds rather than first healing the wounds in one's own household? America used to be a shining example to the rest of the world, the beacon on the hill. If we could find a workable solution to the increasing problem of economic inequality, I think it would go a long way to removing the tarnish from our image in the eyes of the non-wealthy members of the world community.
B. A FLAWED SOLUTION
There is a big disparity between the rich and the poor. But if one suggests that one way to correct this disparity would be to distribute the total private wealth of American citizens equally to either all earners or to each and every citizen, they become alarmed. I can think of three possible reasons for this reaction.
1. Getting Along with Less
If America's private wealth were evenly divided you may believe you would have to live with less than you do now? In 2009, 93% of the lowest income households had an average net worth of $139,817. If the total private net worth of the country in 2010 were divided equally among 118 million households, each household would be worth $459,322. So the overwhelming majority of American households would see more than a 50% increase in their net worth.
The annual median income of American earners in 2012 was $51,371. If the total annual reported income of U.S. earners for 2012 was divided evenly among all earners, each of 155.5 million earners could benefit from and pay taxes on $86,179. Some people in the 4th quintile (annual income $64,500-108,300) and all in the 5th quintile ($108,300+) would be the only people who would have to get along with a lower income. (For an explanation of quintiles refer to Section B, subsection 2) of my blog post mentioned above.) As Gandhi once said, "There is enough for everyone's need. There is not enough for every one's greed."
Equal distribution of wealth would actually benefit the majority of Americans.
2. Some deserve more or less than others
Another possible reason for the negative reaction to the idea of equally sharing the wealth is that we have been taught that some people deserve prosperity while others don't. Does a plumber deserve to make more money than a teacher? Because a person has a higher education he should earn more than a ditch digger? Really? The college graduate may need to earn more than the ditch digger in order to pay back his/her student loans in a timely fashion. Does one's financial need determine what one deserves to be paid? Sanitation workers are supposedly paid top wages because few people want to do that job. If you've ever cleaned public restrooms for a living, you know that undesirability of the task does not automatically increase your wage. I see no logic whatsoever in determining the remuneration of different workers.
If one belongs to a union one has the power of collective bargaining to help one get paid as much as possible. All workers don't deserve that advantage? Then there is the cost of living which varies from place to place. The above question is raised again. Should one's economic need be a factor in determining how much one earns?
And what about the size of one's family? If an earner chooses to have more children does that make him or her deserving of more money than someone who chooses to contribute to population control by having no more than two children?
Then there's the problem of adults who don't work at all. Why should they make more money than anyone else? These people usually can be found in one of two classes. One is those who are impoverished. The other is those who are so rich they don't need to work and don't want to. I suspect most people don't think the latter group is much of a problem. After all they aren't being supported by taxpayer money, at least, not directly. Nor does there seem to be a whole lot of resentment against people with physical/mental/emotional disabilities who are unable to work and who get financial benefits from the government. More people perceive able-bodied and able-minded non-earners who are dependent on government benefits to be a definite problem. On the other hand, I have not heard anyone advocate that these unemployed non-earners should be allowed to die from exposure or starvation.
In 2011 there were 1.5 million American households that made less than two dollars per day. As of 2012 there were 46,790,000 Americans who were considered poor, i.e., living in households with incomes less than the Federal poverty guidelines. For a list of those guidelines for 2014, refer to www.aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm. The poverty levels vary according to household size. They are also based on average costs of living which vary from area to area. According to the Social Security Administration (www.ssa.gov/press office/... ), in June, 2013 there were 8.9 million disabled workers receiving SS disability benefits. Even if almost 9 million of almost 47 million poor people were unable to earn a living wage, that would leave ap. 38 million able-bodied, able-minded Americans who are poor. How believable or probable is it that that many people are lazy good-for-nothings? I suspect a lot of these people live in remote areas like Appalachia or Native American Reservations where the nearest employment opportunities are not readily accessible. How can one blame people for being poor when there are no paying jobs to be had? Regardless of the size of one's family, if there are no jobs available, one's household is probably going to be poor. If all workers in America earned $86,179 annually there would be plenty of tax money for the government to institute a New Deal type Conservation Corps program to put unemployed people in impoverished rural areas to work enhancing the Common Good. There would also be enough for every earner and their family to afford a healthful lifestyle.
3. Sounds Like Communism
Some will react negatively to the idea of equal distribution of all private wealth because it sounds like Communism which they consider to be an evil and godless concept. Actually Karl Marx, one of the original advocates of Communism never suggested equal distribution of wealth. His idea was "from each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
I would like the people who think the philosophy of Communism is godless to read the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles (4:32-5:10). Members of the original Christian fellowship held all things in common. Those who owned property sold it and gave the proceeds to the apostles who, in turn, distributed the proceeds according to whoever needed them. Then there was Ananias and his wife Sapphira. They sold their land but retained some of the proceeds for themselves. As a result, they died. I wonder how many modern Christians with their materialistic values and anti-communal feelings could have survived in the early Christian church.
4. Impracticality
Some people are opposed to the equal distribution of wealth in this country because they mistakenly believe there is not enough for everyone to live well. Some oppose the idea because they think some people deserve more than others. Does that mean everyone is getting all they deserve? Some don't like the idea of equal distribution because it sounds like Communism which they equate with moral evil. How they reconcile that with God's capital punishment of the people who did not go along with the communistic system of wealth distribution in Acts is a mystery to me. Besides which equal distribution of wealth is not communism.
So what is wrong with equally distributing the private wealth of the country as a solution to economic inequality? The real problem is the probability that one or five or ten years from the implementation of that "solution", the same situation of inequality would have recreated itself. The same families that have the most now would have the most again. The people with the least now would end up re-impoverished.
C. AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION
Equal distribution as a solution to the problem of economic inequality is not practical in the long run. But does that mean there should be no limit to how much money and power the haves are allowed to gain from those who have less? I suspect that even billionaire Warren Buffet does not believe that. I think most people believe there is a degree of unfairness in regard to economic inequality that is unacceptable.
Some of us, who Wisse might label "progressive", still believe that every American is born equal regardless of race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. and that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are different factors that can interfere with people's ability to live freely and to pursue happiness. If you are progressive you may wonder as I do why it would not be possible to make sure that every earner has the opportunity to earn at least enough to provide a healthful lifestyle for him/her self, why the primary focus of government could not be on the Common Good, and why every person who is able and willing to work should not have a good job?
The question above raises other questions. What is a healthful lifestyle? What interferes with governments making the Common Good accessible to all citizens? Is full employment possible?
This is one reason a progressive tax rate makes sense. Someone needs to pay for the cost of government. I have no problem with all earners paying something since everyone benefits from most of the functions of government. With progressive taxation, the greater one's income the higher one's rate of taxation is. I don't understand the reluctance of people earning hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of dollars to pay the lion's share of the tax burden. The more people there are in the world, the more taxes will be required for government to provide for the Common Good. Where does all the money the government spends end up? Some of it is paid directly to private businesses for the goods and services governments need to function. Some of the tax money goes to banks as interest on the money the government has borrowed. Some goes to government employees and those dependent on government subsidies, entitlements, grants, etc. Recipients of government funds do not live without spending the money they get from the government. The fact is that most of the money being spent in this country ends up in the pockets of the Upper Class.
If the focus of government functioning in America was shifted from private enterprise to the collective good, the first priority of federal, state and local governments would be the establishment and maintenance of the Common Good. For more complete explanation of the Common Good refer to Section B, subsection #5 and Section E of my Plutocracy blog at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com. For the Federal Government to maintain the Common Good means securing the borders; defending the country from outside attacks; maintaining national parks, airports, the national highway system, environmental quality, educational system quality; preventing and discouraging interstate criminal activity; insuring food and drug safety and quality; preserving the health and safety of workers, the disabled and the elderly; protecting consumers from unsafe or financially damaging products and services; defending human rights; etc..
State governments help maintain the Common Good by enforcing state laws and regulations; preserving the natural environment; providing for those who can't care for themselves; maintaining state parks and recreational sites; ensuring public health and safety; preventing and discouraging criminal abusive behavior; maintaining state highways and roads; etc.
Local governments maintain the common good through law enforcement; preserving environmental quality; enforcing building regulations; ensuring public safety; fire fighting and prevention; ensuring pure public water supplies; building and maintaining local public parks and playgrounds that are accessible to all; enforcing local health and environmental regulations; maintaining the local public infrastructure; etc.
There are millions of government employees in this country who do their best every day to preserve the Common Good. These include firefighters, law enforcement officers, military personnel, forest rangers, building inspectors, code enforcers, street cleaners, etc. We should be grateful and respectful of the work they do which hopefully pays each and every one of them at least a reasonable living wage.
I am aware that there is resentment against government regulations as they apply to small businesses. There may be regulations that simply make no sense, especially when one is seeing them only from one's own perspective. My business has only one vehicle. It makes sense to prohibit a company with a hundred vehicles from dumping used motor oil into the ground. But how much damage can it amount to if I do that? If one has a small dry cleaning establishment. Why go to the expense of capturing occasional discharges of toxic gas? How much damage can it do if my small establishment expels it into the air? According to the Small Business Administration (www.sba.gov/sites/.../FAQ...) in 2012 99.7 percent of private firms that employed people were small businesses. The net negative effect on the Common Good of all those small businesses saving money by dumping waste into the air or the water would be worse than the remaining .3% of large corporations doing the same.
I think it is better to support small businesses with purchases of goods and services rather that to buy from large corporations. Some small businesses are owned and operated by very rich people. I suspect their customers are mostly from the Upper Class. Consumers who purchase goods and services from small businesses owned and operated by Lower and Middle Class proprietors help to send the message to the large corporations that we are aware of the part they play in the increasing economic disparity in this country.
What is conspicuously missing in the above lists of government functions is the wasting of tax payer money. Spending money on bridges to nowhere, on community buildings that no one uses, or on a fleet of fighter planes that are not needed are examples of government waste that do nothing to enhance nor maintain the Common Good. For a more complete discussion regarding waste by the Federal Government check out the "National Debt" post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com. The billions of dollars per year that governments waste detracts from the Common Good since that money could otherwise be used to enhance the Common Good. The responsibility for this waste rests squarely on the shoulders of the legislators-they who make the laws and rules and decisions about how much gets spent and for what.
Another thing missing from the lists of government functions is increasing the profits of private businesses and individuals. Politicians seem to love awarding juicy government contracts to big corporations. Besides making the corporations feel more generous at election time, the idea is that such contracts will stimulate the economy. My Plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com presents evidence that the trickle-down economics theory is false. The wealthy make sure they are getting richer rather than poorer. As long as one is getting richer, why care about who is worse off as a result of one's increase?
I do not believe a proper function of government is to help the rich get richer. Besides awarding contracts that waste taxpayer money to corporations in which the wealthiest Americans are heavily invested, the government allows the wealthy and corporations all sorts of tax breaks which also contributes to increased profits for the private sector as well as increasing government debt.
Some of us, who Wisse might label "progressive", still believe that every American is born equal regardless of race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. and that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are different factors that can interfere with people's ability to live freely and to pursue happiness. If you are progressive you may wonder as I do why it would not be possible to make sure that every earner has the opportunity to earn at least enough to provide a healthful lifestyle for him/her self, why the primary focus of government could not be on the Common Good, and why every person who is able and willing to work should not have a good job?
The question above raises other questions. What is a healthful lifestyle? What interferes with governments making the Common Good accessible to all citizens? Is full employment possible?
1. A Healthful Lifestyle
One factor that can interfere with living freely and pursuing happiness is disease. The healthier one is, the better able one is to live freely and pursue happiness. While many uncontrollable factors, including genetics and incurable diseases, can negatively affect one's health, a healthful lifestyle can help people to be healthier. The necessities for staying healthy are good quality food (minimally processed, GMO-free, preferably organic), the ability to exercise, hot running water, a warm safe healthful living space, quality health and dental care, the help one needs to kick health-threatening habits. These necessities cost money. Living a healthful lifestyle requires time and energy. Depending on where they live, a person working 40 hours a week for minimum wage may not be able to afford all the necessities of healthful living. A single mother trying to hold down two jobs just to make ends meet may lack the time and energy needed to take adequate care of her health.
Rather than a universal minimum wage what earners need is to make enough to afford a healthful lifestyle, i.e. a healyhful living wage. The amount of a reasonable healthful living wage could be determined in part by the cost of living in the area where one lives.
2. Benefiting Equally from the Common Good
A second factor that can interfere with one's ability to live freely and pursue happiness is to not have as much access to the Common Good as anyone else. For example, poor neighborhoods may tend to have more unrepaired water line leaks, more pot holes, fewer quality public playgrounds, inadequate police protection, more unhealthful and unsafe housing, inferior schools, inadequate public transportation. The Common Good is what government is supposed to supply to all citizens in return for taxes, fees, licenses, etc. Too often the people who pay the most taxes receive the most and best service. The Common Good includes protection of the health and safety of citizens, providing quality education, pure water supplies, reliable public transportation, preservation of environmental quality, providing and maintaining accessible public parks and playgrounds, protection from criminal abuse, etc.This is one reason a progressive tax rate makes sense. Someone needs to pay for the cost of government. I have no problem with all earners paying something since everyone benefits from most of the functions of government. With progressive taxation, the greater one's income the higher one's rate of taxation is. I don't understand the reluctance of people earning hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of dollars to pay the lion's share of the tax burden. The more people there are in the world, the more taxes will be required for government to provide for the Common Good. Where does all the money the government spends end up? Some of it is paid directly to private businesses for the goods and services governments need to function. Some of the tax money goes to banks as interest on the money the government has borrowed. Some goes to government employees and those dependent on government subsidies, entitlements, grants, etc. Recipients of government funds do not live without spending the money they get from the government. The fact is that most of the money being spent in this country ends up in the pockets of the Upper Class.
If the focus of government functioning in America was shifted from private enterprise to the collective good, the first priority of federal, state and local governments would be the establishment and maintenance of the Common Good. For more complete explanation of the Common Good refer to Section B, subsection #5 and Section E of my Plutocracy blog at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com. For the Federal Government to maintain the Common Good means securing the borders; defending the country from outside attacks; maintaining national parks, airports, the national highway system, environmental quality, educational system quality; preventing and discouraging interstate criminal activity; insuring food and drug safety and quality; preserving the health and safety of workers, the disabled and the elderly; protecting consumers from unsafe or financially damaging products and services; defending human rights; etc..
State governments help maintain the Common Good by enforcing state laws and regulations; preserving the natural environment; providing for those who can't care for themselves; maintaining state parks and recreational sites; ensuring public health and safety; preventing and discouraging criminal abusive behavior; maintaining state highways and roads; etc.
Local governments maintain the common good through law enforcement; preserving environmental quality; enforcing building regulations; ensuring public safety; fire fighting and prevention; ensuring pure public water supplies; building and maintaining local public parks and playgrounds that are accessible to all; enforcing local health and environmental regulations; maintaining the local public infrastructure; etc.
There are millions of government employees in this country who do their best every day to preserve the Common Good. These include firefighters, law enforcement officers, military personnel, forest rangers, building inspectors, code enforcers, street cleaners, etc. We should be grateful and respectful of the work they do which hopefully pays each and every one of them at least a reasonable living wage.
I am aware that there is resentment against government regulations as they apply to small businesses. There may be regulations that simply make no sense, especially when one is seeing them only from one's own perspective. My business has only one vehicle. It makes sense to prohibit a company with a hundred vehicles from dumping used motor oil into the ground. But how much damage can it amount to if I do that? If one has a small dry cleaning establishment. Why go to the expense of capturing occasional discharges of toxic gas? How much damage can it do if my small establishment expels it into the air? According to the Small Business Administration (www.sba.gov/sites/.../FAQ...) in 2012 99.7 percent of private firms that employed people were small businesses. The net negative effect on the Common Good of all those small businesses saving money by dumping waste into the air or the water would be worse than the remaining .3% of large corporations doing the same.
I think it is better to support small businesses with purchases of goods and services rather that to buy from large corporations. Some small businesses are owned and operated by very rich people. I suspect their customers are mostly from the Upper Class. Consumers who purchase goods and services from small businesses owned and operated by Lower and Middle Class proprietors help to send the message to the large corporations that we are aware of the part they play in the increasing economic disparity in this country.
What is conspicuously missing in the above lists of government functions is the wasting of tax payer money. Spending money on bridges to nowhere, on community buildings that no one uses, or on a fleet of fighter planes that are not needed are examples of government waste that do nothing to enhance nor maintain the Common Good. For a more complete discussion regarding waste by the Federal Government check out the "National Debt" post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com. The billions of dollars per year that governments waste detracts from the Common Good since that money could otherwise be used to enhance the Common Good. The responsibility for this waste rests squarely on the shoulders of the legislators-they who make the laws and rules and decisions about how much gets spent and for what.
Another thing missing from the lists of government functions is increasing the profits of private businesses and individuals. Politicians seem to love awarding juicy government contracts to big corporations. Besides making the corporations feel more generous at election time, the idea is that such contracts will stimulate the economy. My Plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com presents evidence that the trickle-down economics theory is false. The wealthy make sure they are getting richer rather than poorer. As long as one is getting richer, why care about who is worse off as a result of one's increase?
I do not believe a proper function of government is to help the rich get richer. Besides awarding contracts that waste taxpayer money to corporations in which the wealthiest Americans are heavily invested, the government allows the wealthy and corporations all sorts of tax breaks which also contributes to increased profits for the private sector as well as increasing government debt.
3. Full Employment
A third factor that can prevent people from living freely and pursuing happiness is the lack of opportunity to be gainfully employed without sacrificing one's health, safety, and dignity. There is enough wealth in this country and enough of a need for people willing to work for the sake of the Common Good in return for a reasonable living wage to put any unemployed able-bodied person to work doing just that. It was done in the thirties in the form of the CCC and the WPA (see my plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com, Section B, subsection 7) and it could be done again.
4. In Conclusion
The absence of these three conditions, (1) The affordability of a healthful lifestyle for every earner(2) equal sharing of the Common Good, and (3) a good job for every able willing adult, are symptomatic of an unacceptable degree of economic inequality in the United States.
If you think these conditions exist universally in America today, you are probably a member of the Upper Class. If you don't see the absence of these conditions as a problem to be solved, you may as well stop reading.
If you care, continue reading and maybe we can discover a solution to the problem of growing economic inequality.
D. ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION
I am suggesting a three-part solution to the problem of economic inequality. (1) Paying all earners no less than a healthful living wage. (2) Governments establishing and maintaining the Common Good as their primary focus. (3) Giving everyone who is unemployed but willing to work for the sake of the Common Good a paying job doing so. How does this solution compare with the "flawed solution" of equal division of wealth?
1. Affordability
Is this alternative solution affordable? Paying a minimum healthful living wage might require businesses, especially large corporations to sacrifice a percentage of their regular profits which might decrease the share of profits to shareholders, particularly to those investors from the Upper Class. I see no other way to help correct the unreasonable growing gap between the rich and the poor. If those who have the most are not willing to share more with those that have less, I doubt that the problem of increasing economic inequality can be solved.
If the economic law of supply and demand continues to work as it should, the costs of healthful living necessities, i.e. good food, exercise equipment, quality health and dental care, should decrease as demand for those things increases.
Under this solution slum landlords would be compelled to either do the necessary repairs to insure reliable pure hot running water and pleasant healthful living spaces for their tenants or have the properties condemned.
It would be difficult to determine what the true cost of the Common Good is. How much of the taxes collected are not wasted nor simply expended for special interests? Who knows? One of the most expensive functions of government in regard to maintaining the Common Good is the maintenance of the public infrastructure. That includes rails, highways, streets, bridges, locks, dams, water supplies, school buildings, etc. It is common knowledge that this country's infrastructure has been largely neglected for years. The American Society of Civil Engineers (http:/www.apps.asce.org) in 2009 estimated that repairing the Nation's entire infrastructure as needed would cost $2.2 trillion dollars over five years. If billionaires Warren Buffet and Bill Gates can form a club of the country's entrepreneurs who are willing to give half of their fortunes to charity, perhaps the upper 1% would be willing to donate just 11% of their net worth to pay the $2.2 trillion bill for fixing the country's infrastructure.
The proper functions of government are not cheap. So taxes are necessary. I don't feel it is in anyone's best interest to tax anyone so much that they cannot afford to live a healthful lifestyle. That is just bad business. When people can't afford to live a healthful lifestyle, they are more likely to get sick. If a sick employee makes enough to take off work, he/she will not infect other employees. But the business will not operate as smoothly without that employee. If sick employees can't afford to take off, they will come to work and possibly make others sick.
Depriving people of the affordability of healthful living is not only bad for business. It is detrimental to society in general. Insurance companies are businesses. As such, they need to make profits. The more people with medical insurance who seek medical attention for illnesses makes it more difficult for insurance companies to turn a profit. The insurance company's solution is to raise the share of the cost born by the policy holders. That added expense of health insurance for consumers means they may have less money with which to live a healthful lifestyle, which, in turn, increases their risk of getting sick.
People should be free to decide whether to spend their money on living healthfully or not. Earners who choose not to live healthfully are more likely to cause the rates for health insurance to increase than those who live more healthfully. Why not require those who choose not to act responsibly in regard to disease prevention to purchase high-risk health insurance? This would be more fair to all insured citizens and might help motivate people to live more healthfully.
It would be difficult to determine what the true cost of the Common Good is. How much of the taxes collected are not wasted nor simply expended for special interests? Who knows? One of the most expensive functions of government in regard to maintaining the Common Good is the maintenance of the public infrastructure. That includes rails, highways, streets, bridges, locks, dams, water supplies, school buildings, etc. It is common knowledge that this country's infrastructure has been largely neglected for years. The American Society of Civil Engineers (http:/www.apps.asce.org) in 2009 estimated that repairing the Nation's entire infrastructure as needed would cost $2.2 trillion dollars over five years. If billionaires Warren Buffet and Bill Gates can form a club of the country's entrepreneurs who are willing to give half of their fortunes to charity, perhaps the upper 1% would be willing to donate just 11% of their net worth to pay the $2.2 trillion bill for fixing the country's infrastructure.
The proper functions of government are not cheap. So taxes are necessary. I don't feel it is in anyone's best interest to tax anyone so much that they cannot afford to live a healthful lifestyle. That is just bad business. When people can't afford to live a healthful lifestyle, they are more likely to get sick. If a sick employee makes enough to take off work, he/she will not infect other employees. But the business will not operate as smoothly without that employee. If sick employees can't afford to take off, they will come to work and possibly make others sick.
Depriving people of the affordability of healthful living is not only bad for business. It is detrimental to society in general. Insurance companies are businesses. As such, they need to make profits. The more people with medical insurance who seek medical attention for illnesses makes it more difficult for insurance companies to turn a profit. The insurance company's solution is to raise the share of the cost born by the policy holders. That added expense of health insurance for consumers means they may have less money with which to live a healthful lifestyle, which, in turn, increases their risk of getting sick.
People should be free to decide whether to spend their money on living healthfully or not. Earners who choose not to live healthfully are more likely to cause the rates for health insurance to increase than those who live more healthfully. Why not require those who choose not to act responsibly in regard to disease prevention to purchase high-risk health insurance? This would be more fair to all insured citizens and might help motivate people to live more healthfully.
It may cost the government more, in some geographical areas, to provide more healthful living to those who can't work. For this and other reasons, more tax would have to be collected from wealthier Americans. This has been done in the past. Let's look at a tax chart based on information from http://www.taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-income-tax... These figures represent Federal Individual Income Rates for single earners adjusted for inflation (in 2013 dollars). I include only the minimum highest incomes taxed.
Year Amount of annual income Tax Rate
1940 $81,997,857 79%
1942 $2,817,104 88%
1958 $1,588,886 96%
1965 $728,870 70%
1981 $273,543 70%
1982 $98,737 50%
1986 $184,911 50%
1987 $109,138 38.5%
1988 $34,643 28%
1991 $83,106 31%
1993 $397,721 39.6%
2013 $391,890 39.6%
1988 $34,643 28%
1991 $83,106 31%
1993 $397,721 39.6%
2013 $391,890 39.6%
There is a progressive income tax system in this country which means that the more one earns the higher the rate at which that income is taxed. (For more information about progressive tax and sources refer to my Plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com, Section B, subsection 2.) The chart above reveals that federal income tax is getting less progressive as time goes on. For example, anyone making $82 million and above would pay 79% of that before exemptions, etc. in 1940. By 2013 if one made $82 million or above one's tax rate was only 39.6%. I'm not an economist. So I can only suspect there is some logical rhyme or reason for the wildly fluctuating maximum annual income amounts and their varying tax rates. I also suspect that if there were $82 million dollar earners being taxed at 79% today they would be no less comfortable than the $82 million earners were in 1940. A mere 21% or $17 million should be an adequate annual post tax amount for any household. If you earned $82 million in 2013, the Federal government allowed you to keep about $50 million of that amount plus credits for exemptions, etc.
The wealthiest get to keep more of their earnings when the highest tax rate decreases and/or when the maximum earned amount subject to the highest rate decreases.
If you have read anything about the role of large American Industrial corporations in the rise of Nazi Germany such as Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony C. Sutton (2002) (www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Facism/wall_street...) you may wonder if Congress in 1940 had enough moral fortitude to penalize the wealthiest Americans for making millions in profit from aiding Nazi Germany's war preparations at the expense of the Allies. Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that Ms. Wisse would use the idea of Nazi propaganda to defend a group (the 1%) which includes descendants of those wealthy industrialists that supported and profited from the Nazis' rise to power in the 1930's and 40's?
I wonder if many Lower and Middle Class Americans actually like the fact that America has a 1% elite. Perhaps it gives them something to which to aspire. Realistically, the chances of someone from the Lower or Middle Classes joining the ranks of the 1%, even temporarily, seem pretty slim. What are the chances of winning a mega-lottery or finding a large cache of gold coins in one's back yard?
The wealthiest get to keep more of their earnings when the highest tax rate decreases and/or when the maximum earned amount subject to the highest rate decreases.
If you have read anything about the role of large American Industrial corporations in the rise of Nazi Germany such as Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony C. Sutton (2002) (www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Facism/wall_street...) you may wonder if Congress in 1940 had enough moral fortitude to penalize the wealthiest Americans for making millions in profit from aiding Nazi Germany's war preparations at the expense of the Allies. Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that Ms. Wisse would use the idea of Nazi propaganda to defend a group (the 1%) which includes descendants of those wealthy industrialists that supported and profited from the Nazis' rise to power in the 1930's and 40's?
2. A more moderate state of inequality
There is enough wealth in this country to raise the quality of everyone's life without completely destroying the condition of economic inequality. With my suggested solution there would still be households with incomes hundreds of times lower than those with the highest incomes. The lowest would simply be better off. I wonder if many Lower and Middle Class Americans actually like the fact that America has a 1% elite. Perhaps it gives them something to which to aspire. Realistically, the chances of someone from the Lower or Middle Classes joining the ranks of the 1%, even temporarily, seem pretty slim. What are the chances of winning a mega-lottery or finding a large cache of gold coins in one's back yard?
3. A Moral Solution
Is this solution communistic and therefore, morally evil? Would it be evil for the wealthiest Americans to willingly lower prices and raise wages of their own volition so that all earners could afford a healthful lifestyle? If government leaders were willing to shift their attention from protecting and enhancing private business interests to the promotion of the Common Good, who in the Lower and Middle Classes would have a problem with that? Of course this isn't going to happen because
of the narcissistic self-focused mind set of the wealthy (see my plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com, Section C). This solution will only be implemented if the lower classes demand fair treatment and justice for all citizens. If this sounds communistic, it makes no sense that it could also sound like Nazi propaganda. The German Nazis and Russian Communists hated each other.
In short, there is enough wealth in the country to implement this three-part solution that is fair and beneficial to all without compromising the perception that some people are better off than others because they deserve to be.
In short, there is enough wealth in the country to implement this three-part solution that is fair and beneficial to all without compromising the perception that some people are better off than others because they deserve to be.
E. CONCLUSION
This post is a response to Ruth Wisse's accusation that progressive thinking that criticizes the Upper 1% is Nazi-like propaganda. I seem to recall that the Nazi Party advocated the physical eradication of European Jews. So far I have not heard any cries for the beheading of the 1%.
If Ms. Wisse is truly concerned for the upper 1% or has any doubts about their ability and willingness to defend what's theirs, she should read about the Homestead Steel Strike of 1892 that resulted in 12 deaths, one conviction of a union boss and the breaking of the union. The Upper 1% steel baron Andrew Carnegie did not break a sweat.
I have been describing a problem in which a minority (number wise) of Americans who are rich in economic power, who are narcissistic and self-focused, who have been accumulating so much wealth over the past thirty years that the American middle class is reportedly shrinking, who have been influencing Congressmen who are also Upper Class to favor legislation that benefits big corporations to the detriment of the Common Good (www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com, Section B), and who use lobbyists to influence the writing of the tax code to benefit the Upper Class and their corporate holdings. In other words, the Upper Class is turning our Republic into a Plutocracy. Personally I don't care how much wealth the Upper Class accumulates, as long as all earners of any class have the financial ability to live a healthful lifestyle, as long as all can share equally in a quality Common Good and as long as everyone who wants a good job has one.
Unless we can shift emphasis from everyone's right to self-satisfaction back to the Common Good, I don't expect the tension between the economic classes to ease.
If you want to be part of the solution to the problem of economic inequality, check out Section G of my Plutocracy post at www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com.
.
