Reform or Revolution? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Reform or Revolution?



JOEBIALEK
06-21-2005, 02:48 PM
I had the opportunity the other day to watch a most enlightening program broadcast by UCTV. The one-hour program was called "How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?" presented by President Clinton's former labor secretary Robert Reich.

"Inequality of income, wealth, and opportunity in America is wider now than it's been since the 1920s, and by some measures since the late 19th century. Yet the nation seems unable or unwilling to do much of anything to reverse these trends. What happens if we allow the trends to continue? Will they "naturally" reverse themselves? Or will we get to a point where disparities are so wide that we finally find the political will to take action? Alternatively, will the disparities themselves grow so wide as to discourage action, by fostering resignation among the losers and indifference among the winners? And if the latter, where will it all lead?" SOURCE: Goldman School of Public Policy UC, Berkley

The presentation made excellent use of economic graphs to demonstrate how large of a gap has developed between the upper class and the middle class (not to mention the lower class) with regards to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States between the years 1962 to the present. The trends are alarming to say the least. The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections. Being born into a middle-class family myself, I have truly benefited from my birthright in terms of these advantages right from the starting gate. Some people would argue that many a poor person has risen up by their "own boot straps" but I would argue that in today's society, most (not all) poor people can only rise up with a good pair of athletic shoes or a willingness to sell drugs. Otherwise they have to remain content with working in the service industry for comparatively lower wages than their upper-class counterparts. Mr. Reich further points out that one of the elements keeping our society glued together is the belief or perception by the lower class that opportunity in this country still exists and that if one is willing to work hard, they can be successful.

The speaker talks of two potential outcomes for this growing disparity. He uses the metaphor of the rubber band to illustrate his point. Our society will either "snap back" with a series of reforms supported by all three classes and the government to regain a sense of fairness when it comes to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States. This has occurred at least once before in the history of our country during a time referred to as the progressive movement. The other potential outcome is for our society to "snap break" whereby this country exists with two entirely different societies. The problem with the latter outcome is that it often leads to the arrival of a demagogue who plays upon the emotions of the middle and lower classes all for the hidden intention of personal gain. We have seen this all too often in history with the likes of Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin etcetera. Mr. Reich suggests somehow that the upper class are not a group with malicious intent but rather are nothing more than a naive self-indulgent class of people who don't know any better. Here I beg to differ. I believe the upper class is guilty of a careless disregard for their fellow countrymen. They have the arrogance to believe they are superior and deserving of extravagance regardless of how they attained it and regardless of how it affects the rest of society. Once again, history shows us what happened to those monarchs who behaved the same way. Do I think there will be a violent revolution in this country? I hope not. Do I prefer a new progressive movement over even a peaceful revolution? Absolutely. My fear however, is that we are already rapidly approaching the point of "critical mass" beyond which there is no turning back. The question today before the American people is what are YOU prepared to do?

JOEBIALEK
07-04-2005, 09:45 AM
replies?

kexodusc
07-04-2005, 10:09 AM
While the disparity may be growing between the so-called rich and poor in terms of income, the quality of life over the last 100 years, even 60 years has advanced incredibly as well. People can accumulate more relative wealth than ever before, but don't forget that consumption behaves like a hyperbola, that is with additional units of wealth, consumption increases at a diminishing rate, eventually peaking. How many mansions and Ferarri's can you possibly own? It's not like the rich are wasting all these billions of dollars. For the most part their investing it into companies that employ the poor. Since we all need jobs, this isn't such a bad thing. I don't know for sure, but I bet if you were to look at actual discretionary spending habbits of most of the wealthy (Micheal Jackson exluded) you'd find that the amounts they do spend over average would be much more modest than most people think.

In my work (investment management, particularly pensions) we've seen a dramatic change in the composition of corporate power in the last 50 years. 50 years ago, you were far more likely to see companies owned by the individual or family, today it's owned by shareholders. And while "shareholder" is an evil word to many, people don't realize that largest holders of corporate equity are financial institutions. Those institutions get their money primarily from the average Joe's retirement savings.

Money is nice, but I think people are finally starting to realize that there's more to life than cash, and the pursuit of wealth isn't as strong as it was in the past.

mystic
07-04-2005, 09:42 PM
replies?

You can find plenty about the rich-poor gap with a Google search. Even Alan Greenspan believes it's happening and is concerned. I think he sees a better educated workforce as a good solution (greater skills mean higher earnings). High schools probably could do a better job of preparing young people for work. Another solution is a tax raise for the rich and a tax cut for the poor.

trollgirl
07-05-2005, 06:36 PM
...the educator Jeff Cooper once said that today's education system is geared toward turning our sons and daughters into hewers of wood and drawers of water (Biblical reference, what Israel did to the Jebusites). Oddly, as we progress technologically, we are dumbed down culturally and intellectually. I have an idea what our country is in for, and though I'm not as pessimistic as those who say the best we can hope for is that our descendants will forget we were Americans, I think we are going to have to pay a terrible price for our mistakes. Was it not Thomas Jefferson who said, "I tremble for my country, knowing that God is just."?

Laz

eighthcircuit
08-04-2005, 11:23 PM
It's not like the rich are wasting all these billions of dollars. For the most part their investing it into companies that employ the poor. Since we all need jobs, this isn't such a bad thing.

I think the point is not to discuss how the rich are spending their money, but rather to ask where that money actually came from and how. And, why there are some in the position to spend that money in the first place. Investing money that was appropriated from the labor of others in order to provide labor with more opportunities for exploitation is hardly something to brag about. Its like saying, how would the slaves live if they didn't have masters to put them to work. Obviously, the slaves could eat if the masters didn't/couldn't monopolize the ownership of resources. Saying we all need jobs says nothing about how necessary labor should be organized, so yes this IS a bad thing.


Money is nice, but I think people are finally starting to realize that there's more to life than cash, and the pursuit of wealth isn't as strong as it was in the past.

This is idealistic, since capitalism is not and cannot be based on moral values, but on economic laws, such as the objective necessity to maximize the profit of capital (in the context of government distorted economic competiiton of course). The objective fact of rising inequality is occurring regarless of people's subjective feelings about what life is really about. Addressing this problem requires a change in objective conditions. Admitting there is more to life than money doesn't change the conditions of injustice. That would actually require an institutional change. Revolution or Reform? That's another subject altogether, but I'd have to say I disagree with thread stater because I prefer the former

Haru
08-17-2005, 07:45 PM
Another solution is a tax raise for the rich and a tax cut for the poor.

The poor don't pay taxes

Justlisten2
08-18-2005, 11:21 AM
It's going to take another labor movement, only this one will be bloodier.
No baseball bats and nightsticks this time, everyone has guns. :eek:

I'm just amazed how out of the seven deadly sins, we've chosen to worship greed.
I wish it was lust. ;)

If you have issues with gluttony, lust, sadness, anger, etc, we can get you help, we can 'fix you'.
If you have issues with greed, we worship and admire you.

How strange is that??? :confused:

Only from a country who thinks Jesus wants us to go out and kill others for him, oh yeah, and lavish each other with expensive gifts to celebrate his birthday.

Some people really just don't get it. :o

mystic
08-18-2005, 12:05 PM
The poor don't pay taxes

The Federal income tax rate is 10 percent on taxable income under $6,000 a year, and 15 percent on taxable income of $6,000 to $27,000. There must be a lot of poor people in these brackets. They also have to pay State income tax and/or sales tax in most places.

Haru
08-18-2005, 09:19 PM
The Federal income tax rate is 10 percent on taxable income under $6,000 a year, and 15 percent on taxable income of $6,000 to $27,000. There must be a lot of poor people in these brackets. They also have to pay State income tax and/or sales tax in most places.

Correct me if Im wrong but with with earned income credit and deductions I dont think that individuals or especially families earning $27,000 or less pay any real taxes. State income tax is usually handled the same way and everyone "rich" or "poor" pays consumptions taxes equally. The only difference is that the "rich" have the means to deduct many or much of their purchases in itemization or presonal and operational expense. The key words in you statement are Taxable Income that is a different animal completly from Income.

One thing to keep in mind is that statistics can be deceiving . In my opinion you cant lump high school students and college students among others into the "working poor" statistics. Their not poor, they just dont have any money yet, if that makes any sense.

I will give you a statistics example regarding health care insurance: My wife is a Labor and Delivery/triage nurse. Many that come into her clinic are in the working (or non-working) poor group. Statistically they are identified as having no health care but with Minn. Care (our state health coverage for the "poor") they have medical benefits that are better than the average guy on the street.

Myself, being involved in a small business, would go broke trying to pay for the medical benefits they receive on a daily basis. Yet once again, those individuals are counted as individuals without medical benefits because they are not "Paid" policy's.

mystic
08-19-2005, 09:20 PM
Correct me if Im wrong but with with earned income credit and deductions I dont think that individuals or especially families earning $27,000 or less pay any real taxes. State income tax is usually handled the same way and everyone "rich" or "poor" pays consumptions taxes equally. The only difference is that the "rich" have the means to deduct many or much of their purchases in itemization or presonal and operational expense. The key words in you statement are Taxable Income that is a different animal completly from Income.

One thing to keep in mind is that statistics can be deceiving . In my opinion you cant lump high school students and college students among others into the "working poor" statistics. Their not poor, they just dont have any money yet, if that makes any sense.

I will give you a statistics example regarding health care insurance: My wife is a Labor and Delivery/triage nurse. Many that come into her clinic are in the working (or non-working) poor group. Statistically they are identified as having no health care but with Minn. Care (our state health coverage for the "poor") they have medical benefits that are better than the average guy on the street.

Myself, being involved in a small business, would go broke trying to pay for the medical benefits they receive on a daily basis. Yet once again, those individuals are counted as individuals without medical benefits because they are not "Paid" policy's.

The earned income credit(EIC) does help families with children. I ran some figures through the 2004 IRS 1040 for examples. I hope these numbers are correct. Based on $27,000 earnings in 2004, a standard deduction of $9,700 and $3,100 per individual for exemptions, a married couple with one child would have an EIC of $689, reducing their tax bill from $803 to $114.If the couple had two children, their $493 tax would be more than offset by a $1,776 EIC, and the IRS would owe them $1,283.

A childless married couple who earned $27,000, however, would not qualify for the EIC, and would owe IRS $1,103. Similarily, a single person who earned one-half that amount($13,500) would owe $553. While some singles(and even married couples) live with parents who help support them, a lot do not, and some even have to help support parents.

While the income tax is progressive, the sales tax is in a way a regressive tax, and by it's nature affects the poor more than the wealthy. A person making $500,000 per year, for example, is able to satisfy his basic needs, such as food and clothing, with a much smaller proportion of his income than a person making $10,000.

I don't think I would like it if the poor got free health care that I couldn't afford to buy.

Haru
08-19-2005, 10:01 PM
Mystic, Im sure your figures are accurate.
Maybe its time for the "flat tax"

Haru