Americans are deeply worried about wealth and income gaps. But the issue evinces only confusion on the campaign trail.
By Eric Alterman
Were it not for Trumpmania, we might be using this endless election season to discuss the fact that economic inequality has finally risen to the top of the list of most Americans’ concerns. In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, 68 percent agreed that we live in a country whose economic system favors the rich rather than the rest of us. (About half of Republicans agreed with this too.) In another poll, fully 83 percent called the nation’s wealth gap a problem, with a majority terming it “a major problem.” Meanwhile, Gallup has seen a steady majority in the number who respond positively to its 30-year inquiry: “Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?” And the Pew Research Center recently found that 69 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that the federal government should do “a lot/some” to reduce the income gap.
While it would be wrong to imply that the mainstream media are ignoring economic inequality, Americans remain sadly uninformed about the severity of the problem. A study recently published in Perspectives on Psychological Science asked Americans to guess the ratio between the average S&P 500 CEO’s earnings and their workers’ wages. The average estimate: 30 to 1. The truth: 354 to 1.
When the conversation is not overwhelmed by talk of “anchor babies” and Mexican murderers, Republicans are occasionally asked to address inequality. Some attack the banks, while others fulminate against the Fed or the Export-Import Bank. A few complain about corporate welfare. All of them attack Obama. One suspects that in this case, if not any others, Rand Paul was speaking for the pack when he explained: “Income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things…. We all end up working for people who are more successful than us.” He went on to add: “And that’s a good thing.” (Unique among his rivals, Donald Trump has called for higher taxes on the wealthy, especially hedge-fund managers and others who use the “carried interest” loophole to pay a fraction of the rate paid by wage earners.)
Almost never, however, is inequality tied to the myriad problems it causes in public and private life, to say nothing of the mockery it makes of the American Dream. To the GOP hopefuls, addressing the problem is as simple as stimulating growth. As Jeb Bush told National Journal, “If you’re not growing the economy, you’re not going to deal with income inequality.” Almost always, Barack Obama is blamed for standing in the way.
Bernie Sanders is obviously talking a great deal about inequality, though even his signature issue has been overshadowed by the controversy caused by the Black Lives Matter interruptions (and shut-downs) of his speeches, along with less serious distractions. This is deeply unfortunate, because Sanders is seeking to start a conversation that we have never before had in this country. Unlike pretty much every other serious candidate for national office in the past century (at least), Sanders is not “pro-growth” per se. As Jim Tankersley pointed out on The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Sanders believes that “unchecked growth—especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent—is absurd.” He has no interest in “growth for the sake of growth.” Instead, he seeks to foster “a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people.” This will require the assertion of healthcare, childcare, and educational opportunity as fundamental rights, for starters. Sanders is also highlighting the destructive impact of unchecked growth on climate change and other environmental issues. He judges elite arguments about economic efficiency as simple corporate manipulation: “They’re efficient for the people who own the corporations. They’re not particularly efficient for the people who have been thrown out on the street.”
Read more at The Nation
Categories: Economic policy, Economic rights, Economics, Human rights, Opinion/Editorial, Political commentary, Politics, U.S. history
I was just talking to a young man (31) who was telling me that he had friends that had $40,000 plus student loans that they were barely able to make the payments since their jobs were lower end and Not the reason (to wind up in a non career job) they went to college/university
I told him that his generation is going to have to get involved in politics to make decisions that will effect their present and future. He threw out ”yeah, my SS will not be there”. So, I explained to him how pension funds work, that the more people paying in takes care of the ones that retire. If the pool paying in is depleted for whatever reason, the pension fund loses. He caught it quick. And I reminded him about companies that go broke and the pension fund goes poof! too or hedge funds embezzling the funds etc.
The one thing that is most bewildering to me: is just How do politicians think that they can tax the Majority for every little thing to avoid taxing the wealthier citizens and companies…..when the Majority are making the least amount or lessor amounts of take home pay. The politicians on Every level have found numerous ways to ‘tax’ the majority, and yet the wealthier gain by exemptions, tax credits and tax deductions. They also hire lawyers and CPA’s to keep them from paying taxes.
Even assessed property or business taxes, and work out payment plans, such as the Justice that is running for Governor of WV and owes KY millions in back taxes.