General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Rich People Hate Talking About Inequality
By Zack Beauchamp
Ed. note: This is the third and final post in a TP Ideas symposium on Branko Milanovics The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality. The first installment is here here and the second is here.
The wealthy dont like it when we talk about it inequality. Mitt Romney famously labeled President Obamas critique of inequality class warfare motivated by envy, and proposed instead that debate about economic inequality be confined to quiet rooms. Its fair to say hes not alone among the super-wealthy in thinking this isnt a proper subject for open, political debate.
At first blush, their motivation here is straightforward: it could cost them money. But given Americas one percent already has so much, and so little redistribution is on the table, theyd have to be exceptionally greedy to have such a strong reaction to even broaching the inequality discussion. Of course thats possible, but the history of debates around inequality as surveyed in Branko Milanovics wonderfully readable book suggests another explanation. The rich dont like inequality talk because, by its very nature, it involves making moral judgments about the way the rich live their lives into a topic for public discussion.
In the books first essay, Unequal People, Milanovic runs down the earliest modern economic theories about whether inequality is good for economic growth. The difference between early theories wasnt, as we think today, whether or not you thought inequality was something that happened as a consequence of a roaring economy: it was whether, essentially, the rich are good people or not.
On the first view, defended to varying degrees by Max Weber and John Maynard Keynes, the rich were virtuous workers, dutiful, acquisitive folk who accumulated but spent no more on indulgences than the poor....Milanovics second view paints a dimmer picture of virtues of the rich. It assumes that the rich are selfish, greedy parasites who hold on to massive hoards and spend on themselves without investing in much of anything socially useful...Whats interesting about both sides of this debate is that they assume a public policy problem (what grows the economy?) needs to be discussed in terms of the moral character of the rich. This isnt because economists have a yen for judging people; rather, its that when you have the amount of accumulated capital and power that rich do, the way in which one spend ones money ends up having an extraordinary impact on everyone else in society. Invariably, assessing the desirability of rich peoples consumption choices will take on a moral cast, as what a person chooses to spend their money on says a lot about the person. Especially when theyre rich enough to spend it on anything.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/29/1795571/why-rich-people-hate-talking-about-inequality/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"they don't mind talking about it. they do it all the time."
...in terms of class warfare. I mean, even the media pushed this meme whenever the topic of the rich paying their fair share came up.
The media have a way of creating sympathy for the rich and demonizing the poor.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)elected is feed their rich campaign contributors.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"or kind of like how during elections they're all populist but the first thing they do when they get elected is feed their rich campaign contributors."
...they're still trying to repeal the health care law.
Another Obamacare repeal vote down the drain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022551634
McConnell has a 'secret' plan for 'Obamacare'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022579129
I mean, it's unthinkable to leave a law in place that raised taxes on the rich and helps the poor.
There is a debate about the impact of the recent tax deal, but simple arithmetic shows the reality.
Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.
Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s.
Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to create bottom-up economic growth and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits fully refundable, so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
Some notes for myself: how much impact have Obamas policies actually had on current and prospective inequality?
The main policies to consider are PPACA (the health reform) and ATRA (the fiscal cliff deal with its associated tax rise).
Im not a fan of the Tax Foundations work, but their analysis of the distributional effects of Obamacare looks about right: significant benefits to the bottom half of the income distribution, paid for largely by taxes on the top few percent (the Medicare surcharge and the extra tax on investment income). The Tax Policy Center whose work I do trust has the Act reducing the after-tax income of the top 1 percent by 1.8 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 2.5 percent.
Meanwhile, ATRA raises taxes relative to a continuation of the Bush high-end tax cuts: after-tax income down 4.5 percent for the 1-percenters, 6.2 percent for the top 0.1 percent.
Putting this together, we have a roughly 6 percent hit to the 1 percent, around 9 to the superelite. Thats only a partial rollback of these groups huge gains since 1980, but its not trivial.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/obama-and-redistribution/
HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But the ethical and moral values that got them to where they are also prevent action to fix it.
So, they get depressed and paranoid.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"But the ethical and moral values that got them to where they are also prevent action to fix it...So, they get depressed and paranoid."
...pure greed. The only other time the disparity was so great was prior to Great Depression. In times of great economic prosperity since that period, the rich have done extremely well, with the top one percent garnering about 9 to 12 percent of overall income (1940s to late 1970s). In recent decades, doing extremely well wasn't enough. They had to take and take until they covet more than 23 percent of overall income. It's obscene.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)It's not like there is a lot of virtue when I buy a pop or a gallon of gas or a can of pringles.
The issues, as I see it, are at least two.
1. How they got the money?
But that is not so much of a public policy issue as
2. What their tax rate will be?
Since the time of Reagan, the big push has been for tax cuts for the rich. When Clinton ran for President, he embraced Reaganomics as well.
A few people have tried to push back, to roll back those tax cuts for the rich, but they have been outspent. After all, when you give $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the top 5% that gives them a lot of money to "invest" in politicians. For $1 billion they can buy the President, for $2 billion they can buy all of Congress and another $2 billion gets them most of the Governors and State legislators. And that's only .004 of the $1.5 trillion in "permanent" tax cuts. The rest is just gravy.
"the issue is not so much how they spend their money...It's not like there is a lot of virtue when I buy a pop or a gallon of gas or a can of pringles."
...it is. Putting money back into the economy drives growth. If the rich park their money in the Cayman Islands, that doesn't do much for the economy.
Shopping at the local store, even for a pop, helps.
You're right about Reaganomics. During the Reagan years, the obscene growth at the top (similar to the pre-Depression era) started up again.
There a baby steps in the right direction: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2588975
The resistance is tremendous.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)The top 1% are not rich from hard work! they are rich because of an interest rate.