The Myth of Economic Mobility
Today's New York Times had an interesting editorial that recaps some data from a research article that paper published earlier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/opinion/06herbert.html
Consider, for example, two separate eras in the lifetime of the baby-boom generation. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of the population between 1950 and 1970, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162. That gap has since skyrocketed. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000.
And the Bush tax cuts? The ones that were intended to create jobs?
"Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."
The social dislocations resulting from this war that nobody mentions have been under way for some time. But the Bush economic policies have accelerated the consequences and intensified the pain.
Economists will tell you that our economy is approximately two-thirds driven by consumer spending, and one-third investment driven. But what do the uber-rich do with tax cuts? They do not rush out into a fit of consumer spending. The super-rich are far more likely to invest such a windfall, or squirrel it away -- neither of which has the growth effect on the American economy that broad-based consumer spending does.
Am I opposed to tax cuts for lower income and middle class Americans? No. However, the cost of the tax cut to the upper class would have more than paid for propping up the Social Security system. And currently we are spending $5 billion per month in Iraq, with nothing to show for it.
Because the neo-conservatives have taken the early lead in framing the debate, liberals have been scared away from supporting the idea of regressive taxation. But Regressive taxation is not a recent idea, or the result of some liberal east coast thinktank. It describes a sliding tax scale with increasingly higher brackets, and it has been part of American politics since Abraham Lincoln.
Under the guise of opportunity, the wealthy and corporate class have sold the American public a phony bill of goods. And they used our own tax money to give themselves a big reward for their cleverness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/opinion/06herbert.html
Consider, for example, two separate eras in the lifetime of the baby-boom generation. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of the population between 1950 and 1970, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162. That gap has since skyrocketed. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000.
And the Bush tax cuts? The ones that were intended to create jobs?
"Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."
The social dislocations resulting from this war that nobody mentions have been under way for some time. But the Bush economic policies have accelerated the consequences and intensified the pain.
Economists will tell you that our economy is approximately two-thirds driven by consumer spending, and one-third investment driven. But what do the uber-rich do with tax cuts? They do not rush out into a fit of consumer spending. The super-rich are far more likely to invest such a windfall, or squirrel it away -- neither of which has the growth effect on the American economy that broad-based consumer spending does.
Am I opposed to tax cuts for lower income and middle class Americans? No. However, the cost of the tax cut to the upper class would have more than paid for propping up the Social Security system. And currently we are spending $5 billion per month in Iraq, with nothing to show for it.
Because the neo-conservatives have taken the early lead in framing the debate, liberals have been scared away from supporting the idea of regressive taxation. But Regressive taxation is not a recent idea, or the result of some liberal east coast thinktank. It describes a sliding tax scale with increasingly higher brackets, and it has been part of American politics since Abraham Lincoln.
Under the guise of opportunity, the wealthy and corporate class have sold the American public a phony bill of goods. And they used our own tax money to give themselves a big reward for their cleverness.
posted by Sauron at 8:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home