Powered By Blogger
Showing posts with label middle class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle class. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 13, 2014




Published CommPro.biz 2014.05.13
 
A New Gilded Age?


By: W.T. “Bill” McKibben

In 1873 Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner published The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today. The name stuck, roughly covering the period from the end of the Civil War to the Trust Busting Teddy Roosevelt era. At its height around 1900 the top 10% percent of Americans soaked up about half the income with the top 1% getting about 40% of that amount. That left the 90% to divvy up the other half, slim pickings at best.

After Teddy Roosevelt leveled the playing field and the labor movement spread the bucks around even more, income inequality was not as big an issue. The two World Wars that devastated the infrastructure of nearly all developed economies, except the United States gave America a running start during most of the last 100 years. However, toward the end of the 20th Century and into the early part of the 21st the rich and powerful began to tilt the table in their direction again. The laws put in place following the Great Depression that protected little folks fell to a “Deregulation Era.” Enter a new Gilded Age.

Tax loopholes and corporate subsidies added in to tilt the American landscape toward the super rich. So we find ourselves just where we were in the last Gilded Age, half the bucks going to the top 10% and 40% of that going to the top 1%. The middle class has been devastated and the poor are scrambling to keep their heads above water. Basically a set of social problems covered by a “thin gold gilding” the same outlook seen by Twain and Warner in 1873.

That leaves some questions. Is it morally and ethically acceptable? Is it financially sustainable? Teddy Roosevelt didn’t think it fit inside any of those parameters. He saw it as just wrong. It isn’t as if this new Gilded Age came about through the efforts of those who are benefiting. When the laws of the land are twisted to give any group an advantage it’s just plain wrong. What’s really bad about the current situation is that the recession so many are struggling to crawl out from under was triggered by reckless bankers who we had to bailout to avoid a major depression. They are now doing better than ever and the stock market is booming.

A recent Pew Research Center study shows that almost all Americans understand how the makeup of this Gilded Age came to be. Given an open-end question the answers came in all over, however, two out of five pinpointed loopholes and our tax system, followed by all the usual suspects, government policies, corporate influence, greed, etc., etc., etc. Although remarkably 10% believe that a poor work ethic and reliance on government handouts created inequality; really! A gilded age is unsustainable; it’s bad for the poor and for the rich.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

What's Fair

What's Fair
 
A Bloomberg Businessweek focus on wealth inequality (11.16.11) came up with some stunning conclusions. Using Census numbers –and a wide variety of past and present expert opinions– they point to the existing and growing disparity of wealth in America and conclude that it is bad for our economy. The gridlock we are experiencing leads those who are slipping behind to conclude that they have no hope, that they are at the mercy of the rich. The two ends of the economic ladder slip into bitter blame game positions.

Here’s where this game goes wrong for the rich. Income inequality leads to social instability. That leads to the belief that the system (read Stock Market) is rigged in favor of the ultra rich and you lose as much as a generation of investors. They point to the stock market following the crash in 1929. It took until 1954 for it to regain its pre-depression level, more than a quarter century. One wonders how long an extended downturn of that nature might last if we do not find our way out of the gridlock now engulfing us. Unlike the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s, in the era of the 401k etc. there are lots of middle class folks with a stake in the stock market these days.

We keep hearing that the rich create jobs. But the research shows that jobs are created by small businesses. Those folks are not the rich; they are what’s left of the middle class. They are looking for loans to grow and hire, but the banks that we all bailed out are not lending to small businesses. Instead they are back in the risky games that got us into this mess. Worse, small businesses are paying the high corporate taxes –not the big guys.

Speaking of taxes, it makes no sense for the poor and middle class to shell out a bigger piece of their income than the rich. Everyone seems to understand this except those in DC who hold to the job creation myth, and of course the rich who haven’t been able to do the math. When you talk to the savvy wealthy folks, you find that they favor a more equitable tax system. They understand that you can’t build a healthy economy on the backs of the poor. The smartest investor on the planet, Warren Buffett, figured it out years ago. No matter how big your slice is, you can’t do well if the pie keeps shrinking.

In the meantime, if the rich are not creating jobs with their wealth, what are they doing with their money? Well, their investments seem focused on commodities, where they speculate and drive up prices on food and oil; thanks for high gas prices. And they are driving the luxury market; if it’s expensive, they’re buying. Even the price of first class air travel – would you believe aircraft fitted with showers and private compartments? After all you have to look sharp when you arrive in some exotic locale. And what’s $15,000 or $20,000 for a plane ride. There are some pretty obvious ethical issues in all this. Too bad they don’t seem to matter much in our world where the Lobbyists rule in DC. How many of them do you think work for the middle class and the poor?

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

I decided that the tack I was taking this week could wait. I have long been aware of Warren Buffett's belief that our tax structure is unfair. I had no idea how unfair until I read his OP-ED in the New York Times on the subject. For those of you who may have missed it, it is the very essence of an ethical position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
By WARREN E. BUFFETT


Omaha


Our leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. 


While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors. 


These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places. 


Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. 


If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot. 


To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. 


Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. 


I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with super-rich for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. 


Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.


The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.) 


I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering. 


Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality. 


Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. 


But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. 


My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. 


Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

© 2011 New York Times