[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/its-economic-inequality-s_b_4273787.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications ]
Robert CreamerPolitical Organizer, Strategist, Author; Partner Democracy Partners
Mr. Cremer mentions that economically the wellbeing of the middle and working poor classes have been on a downtrend or static for decades:
Today, to qualify for the top 1%, your family has to have an income of at least $394,000 -- and the average income of the top 1% of the population is $717,000. The average for the rest of the population is $51,000. The difference in net worth is even more stark. The top 1% have net assets that average $8.4 million. That would be 70 times the average net worth of the rest of the population.
And this inequality is growing. In 2012, the share of income flowing to the top 1% soared to almost 20% of the income generated by the entire economy. That is the highest level since 1927 - the height of the "Roaring 20's" that set the stage for the Great Depression.
This increase in income and wealth inequality has gone on for some time. According to a study by UC Berkeley economist Emmaunuel Saez, from 1993 to 2012 average real income for the bottom 99% of the population increased 6.6%. Average real income for the top 1% went up 86%. In other words, over the last two decades, the top 1 percent received two thirds of the overall economic growth in real income per family.
“
...who did nothing to earn these fortunes except benefit by the accident of birth.”
This is often heard but despite being born iINTO wealth a child is never born guilty ‘a priori’ as implied. It also seems ‘whimsy’ to tax the rich too quickly and heavily just as it is unfair to tax lesser income strata more than their commensurate ABILITY TO PAY, so ‘less wealthy’ classes should have a lesser tax rate than the rich. The country needs to evaluate exactly what ‘fair’ means and what for what PURPOSE(s) do our taxes really serve!
What exactly is our national tax purpose? Is it simply to make the rich pay their ‘fair share’ whatever that might be and even-out the tax impact? Or, to accumulate government surpluses just because it sounds good? Or, as an optional purpose, one might propose a ‘TAX ENOUGH’ policy that focuses on meeting a few significant objectives but leaves a goodly amount of monies in circulation for jobs, investment, risk etc.
What is the real-life tax impact on our socio-economic classes? Can we even guess at taxation equivalencies?
Oversimplifying, a quick look at tax reform might start with a simple ‘equation': increase the ‘rich’ tax rate but not to de-motivate investment and risk; give the middle class relief by tax reductions and/or tax-reduction-equivalents (college credits, national health care, family tax credits, etc); and give the working poor emergency relief that prioritizes the concept that ‘WORKING POOR’ is not a permanent class but a temporary condition. And above all, avoid the conservative POV that a ‘good’ social policy is one that is punitive in spirit and result, i.e., one that ‘strikes the fear of God’ into the minds and spirits of the taxed...as if America is mired forever in the past battles between the Shires and Robin Hood - a too-easily referenced template left over from America’s core roots in feudal Europe.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment