Showing posts with label Progressive Taxation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progressive Taxation. Show all posts

25 July 2011

Billy Wharton : Our National 'Promissory Note'

National Debt Clock in midtown Manhattan, July 13, 2011. Photo by Brendan McDermid / Reuters.

The national debt:
A tribute to militarism and the rich


By Billy Wharton / The Rag Blog / July 25, 2011

During his much heralded 1963 “I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used the metaphor of a promissory note to describe the civil rights that had long been promised in theory, but denied in practice.

Today, America faces a promissory note of larger proportions -- one that is much less of a metaphor. Democrats and Republicans are currently negotiating whether to allow the U.S. federal government to raise the debt ceiling beyond its current level of more than $14 trillion. Raising the ceiling is just one part of the talks. In the process, the two parties are drawing ever closer to a consensus on sharp reductions to federally funded Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security programs.

The media has portrayed these negotiations as a sort of contentious quarrel between two political parties with vastly different ideas about the debt and the future of the economy. Such a distortion employs two falsehoods aimed at confusing the American public. The first is that the debt is the responsibility of the “American people.” Taken at face value, it seems that each person in the country is somehow personally responsible for the $14 trillion dollar budget deficit. This is clearly rubbish.

We should remember that nearly 50% of the federal budget, last year some $1.3 trillion, was spent on the military. Some of this was spent on maintaining the current bloated armed forces, but this figure has been vastly accelerated by the recent invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the drone war in Pakistan.

These military adventures have been wildly unpopular with the American public and were rammed through thanks in large part to a series of carefully calculated lies concocted by the regime of George W. Bush and continued by Barack Obama. Much in the same way that people should not be held responsible for debts run up by dictatorial regimes, the American people should not be made to feel “personally responsible” for debts run up by their rulers against their will. Debts that served to enrich weapon makers and project American corporate hegemony over foreign markets.

The second major falsehood is that the deficit is produced by overly generous “entitlement” programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. In fact, these programs are quite meager when compared to the welfare state enjoyed in many parts of Europe.

The “big three” public support programs grew out of upsurges in the labor and civil rights movements. They represent key gains for the poor and working class and, as such, should be vigorously defended. These successful programs should be viewed as blueprints for the expansion of human rights in America not, as the media would have people think, obstacles to a more “balanced” economy.

The deficit is more correctly understood as the direct result of tax policies designed and agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans. This is where the squabble portrayed in the media falls apart. Simply put, since the mid to late 1970s, successive Democratic and Republican regimes have massively reduced the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans, thereby clearing the ground for the current crisis.

Some simple statistics can illustrate the change enacted by the two parties. When Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976 the highest income bracket in the U.S. was taxed at a rate of 70%. Today the highest tax bracket stands at 35% and a myriad of loopholes drive that rate even lower. And corporate America is an even bigger offender when it comes to paying taxes, as many corporations this year, including General Electric, paid nothing in taxes. Is it any wonder then that the Federal Government now holds a $14 trillion debt?

The national debt is the clearest representation of the militarism and pro-rich taxation strategies that are rotting our country away. In no way, shape or form are the American people themselves -- the poor and working class people who have been throttled by the rich for decades -- responsible for this debt. Lay it at the feet of those who greedily consumed it -- the war-making elite.

Undoubtedly, the debt ceiling will be lifted and, given the limited political options available at this moment, it should be lifted. Not lifting it would risk a national default that would unleash mass suffering on a scale unseen in this country and would give a free hand to the extreme union-busters and privatizers. This is simply not an option.

However, simultaneously, the American people should say with one loud voice that we will not be made to suffer for the debts accumulated by the elites. There are no acceptable cuts to the Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security programs, regardless of whether the Congressional Democrats, Republicans, or President Barack Obama come peddling them.

Each must be resisted and each is evidence that the government is a tool of the rich and corporations. The simple solution to the deficit crisis, the only way to resolve this debate over the long term, is to make the rich pay.

A democratic socialist government, one that has interests of the poor and working class in mind, would certainly enact an immediate special tax that targets the richest 5% of the population and the top 500 corporations to wipe out the $14 trillion in debt. This would be a first step toward creating a just taxation system -- that would take back trillions in wealth ciphoned off by the rich.

So, we might join in with the words of Dr. King, “we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.” It is high time that we open this bank of justice for business in America. We hold the keys.

[Billy Wharton is a writer, activist and the editor of the Socialist WebZine. His articles have appeared in the Washington Post, The Indypendent
(NYC), Spectrezine, and the Monthly Review Zine. He can be reached at whartonbilly@gmail.com. This article was originally posted to the Bronx County Independent Examiner.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

01 February 2009

Hirschhorn: The Greed Tax

Great idea, but this is definitely a post-revolution happening. At the least, I have mailed this article to my member of Congress and both Senators, telling them I believe this is a proposal that reflects true justice. We'll see what comes of that!!

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog


Tax Solution to Wretched Greed
By Joel S. Hirschhorn / January 30, 2009

A law should be immediately passed that imposes a new special federal income tax of 99 percent on all income in excess of $500,000 annually for single taxpayers and $1 million for couples, starting for 2008 income. Call it a greed tax.

By now most Americans have experienced extreme disgust upon hearing about the nearly $20 billion in bonuses given to people in New York City's financial sector at the end of 2008. After sending the nation into the current economic black hole there is no way of comprehending the audacity of financial company executives in giving themselves and their colleagues shameful rewards for abysmal and disgraceful performance. Other than screaming and moaning about all this dishonorable behavior what should the Obama administration and Congress do?

Here is the solution that the overwhelming majority of Americans should demand: A law should be immediately passed that imposes a new special federal income tax of 99 percent on all income in excess of $500,000 annually for single taxpayers and $1 million for couples, starting for 2008 income. Call it a greed tax. Call it justice. Call it getting even for too many years of uncontrolled greed that has given the nation nothing but economic injustice and inequality, and given capitalism a very bad name. Call it a sensible way to raise federal revenues to help offset the cancerous national debt.

Considering that nearly all of the people who received the 2008 bonuses also received high salaries and even larger bonuses in previous years, and the many billions of dollars of federal dollars going into bailouts of companies, there should be no qualms about such a greed tax. For example, in the two previous years a total of about $70 billion in bonuses were received by these greedy financial sector elites.

Even outside the financial sector, executives also received obscene bonuses in 2008 despite terrible performance. The compensation research firm Equilar, for example, reports that the average performance-based bonuses for top executives, other than the chief executive, at 132 companies with revenues of more than $1 billion increased by 14 percent, to an average of $265,594, in the 2008 fiscal year, in addition to high salaries.

As just one of countless examples of greed, consider that the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Mark Hurd, received $42.5 million in 2008 pay. He had received over $20 million in signing inducements in 2005. During his tenure some 40,000 jobs have been eliminated at H-P. And consider this nice little perk: In 2008 the company also paid out about $181,000 for his business meals.

And then there is the case of Robert Rubin at Citigroup. During his nine years there the company lost over $65 billion. What did Rubin earn? He pocketed $126 million. What did he say when he left? "I bet there's not a single year where I couldn't have gone somewhere else and made more."

Enough already. Drastic action is needed to achieve some justice. With all the attention on the Obama stimulus plan based on spending money the nation does not really have or can afford, it is appropriate to use this proposal to raise more revenues. Tax greed!

Source / Nolan Chart

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

01 November 2008

McCain's Big Backfire : Most Americans Favor 'Spreading the Wealth'


It must come as a surprise to the Republicans that the public favors Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping margin.
By Alexander Zaitchik / November 1, 2008

John McCain and Joe the Plumber are campaigning for Barack Obama, and they don't even know it. The more McCain has ramped up his attacks on Obama as a "spreader of wealth," the more the country has lined up behind the Democrat's plan to spread the wealth. If McCain's economic agenda was a gun and his attacks on Obama's agenda the bullets, the old soldier would have shot both his feet clean off a long time ago.

Watching the GOP's coordinated if increasingly delirious attacks on Obama's economic plan, it's clear that the party is even further out of touch with the America of 2008 than previously imagined. After eight years of establishing and then extending America's lead as the most unequal of all industrialized countries, Republicans thought they could deflect a national groundswell of righteous anger by dusting off and hurling every insult in the conservative arsenal, including old favorites "extremist," "radical," "Marxist" and "socialist." One suspects they are saving "anarchist" and "Hessian" for McCain's last-gasp speech on Monday.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Republican hammer-and-sickle-themed haunted house: Nobody showed. The McCain campaign's attempts to smear Obama as a Trojan donkey for socialistic un-Americanism have belly-flopped, if not backfired. Obama has not only maintained a stable lead under the Republican barrage, he has increased his positives in the traditionally Republican territory of taxes. The final national polls before Tuesday all show a national hunger for national wealth redistribution downward. An Ipsos/McClatchy poll finds that likely voters prefer Obama's tax plan to McCain's by 8 points. Pew says Obama added to his edge on taxes and the economy between mid-September and mid-October by 6 points, jumping from 44 to 39 earlier to 50 to 35. On Oct. 30, Gallup released results showing Americans favor Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping 58-to-37 margin.

It appears the nation's sanity and sense of fairness has reasserted itself to wipe the floor with condescending GOP red-baiting.

It hasn't hurt that the GOP attacks have been absurd on their face. A 3-point increase in the top marginal income tax rate to 39 percent is not easily morphed into the face of Pol Pot. For much of the 20th century, the top income tax rate in the United States slid between 50 percent and 90 percent, peaking at 94 percent during the final two years of World War II. Most Americans would agree that the mid-century rates were excessive, but support for some kind of progressive tax curve remains widespread. Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran winning campaigns promising to raise taxes on the rich.

"The public has always supported moderately progressive taxation, so I don't think McCain's pitch had much resonance unless he could convince people that Obama would raise their taxes," says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Obama inoculated himself against this attack by saying that he would cut taxes for 95 percent of the public. Basically, McCain was trying to make things up, and most people didn't believe him."

Charges of socialism are especially discordant coming from the McCain campaign. The top marginal income tax rate held steady at 50 percent for five years under McCain's hero, Ronald Reagan. His other hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was a fierce and early booster for federal income and estate taxes. And Sarah Palin? It wouldn't be all that surprising to see her turn up at a commemoration of this year's 70th anniversary of the Fourth International. As Hendrik Hertzberg noted in one of many recent pieces debunking the newest GOP attack line, the redistributive principle is practiced with particular gusto in Palin's Alaska, where the governor spreads the oil wealth like creamy butter around the state's absorbent white bread. "One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor," notes Hertzberg, "is that she added an extra $1,200 to this year's (government) check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269." Earlier this summer, Palin boasted to journalist Philip Gourevitch, "Alaskans collectively own the resources. We share in the wealth."

Like Alaskans, we're all socialist now, to an extent, and have been for a long time. It's just a question of daring to speak the adjective's name, which happens to describe hugely popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. Watching McCain's socialist attack line flop, it's tempting to think that the country is edging closer to the day when the word, stripped of its Cold War baggage, no longer has the power to frighten Ohio. Another element is the further eclipse of the culture war by economics. As the country's shifting demographics grow over the divides opened up during the 1960s and '70s, attempts to bundle pinko economics with fears of godless agents of chaos become increasingly meaningless.

The Right is aware of and worried about this growing de-contextualization of the word "socialism." The counterrevolution against the New Deal was aided by the presence of the Soviet Union as a running counterpoint. But it's now almost 20 years after 1989. A generation has matured that never soaked up any of the old propaganda. This generation has studied abroad and knows you can Super-size it in Sweden. It has no memory of "Better Dead Than Red" and can't imagine an elderly British logician making international headlines for saying he'd rather crawl to Moscow on his hands and knees than die in a nuclear war. Conservatives worry about this group much as arms controllers worry that kids today don't understand the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. The right's fright over the post-Cold War generation's immunity to cries of "socialism!" was expressed clearly in an Oct. 27 editorial in the Investor's Business Daily titled "Defining Problems With Socialism for the Post-Cold War Generation."

"John McCain has finally called Barack Obama's agenda by its proper name," it begins. "But if he assumes voters understand what he means when he uses the word 'socialism,' he assumes too much. Sadly, most people under 60 in this country went to schools and universities where socialism isn't considered a bad thing."

Actually, those are two distinct groups -- those who don't understand the word or its gradations, and those who do and wouldn't mind living under most of them. What they have in common is that together they constitute a future United States where the word "socialist" carries an ever-weakening stigma.

Whether we choose to reclaim or dispense with the word, its days as a conversation stopper appear to be over. Over the last eight years, 90 percent of the new income generated has accrued to the top 10 percent, while average family incomes have dropped $2,000. These numbers have engendered bitterness on top of anxiety that has shifted the economic debate. If Democrats get a chance to seek forceful redress in the coming years, Republicans are sure to call Obama a socialist and much else besides. But that's OK. Tuesday's election is going to show that when people are hurting, they don't mind a little "socialism" -- just as long as it's pointed their way.

Source / AlterNet

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.