The notion that the poor always will be with us has been ingrained in our culture ever since the sermons of Moses were set down by the anonymous author of Deuteronomy.Let's hope we don't come to rioting in the streets, but the outrage over AIG bonuses, and then today's headlines that Citi Group, another bailout biggie, plans a $10 million executive suite renovation, may come close to fueling the demand for more fundamental change in our whole approach to money and people.
The financial crisis of the present day raises a rather different issue, however: What should we do about the rich?
That the point is even open for discussion suggests that a sea change is taking place on the American political scene. For decades, the wealthy have been held up as people to be admired, victors in the Darwinian economic struggle by virtue of their personal ingenuity and hard work.
Americans consistently supported fiscal policies that undermined middle- and working-class interests partially because they saw themselves as rich-people-in-waiting: Given time, toil and the magic of compound interest, anyone could retire a millionaire.
That mind-set has all but been eradicated by the damage sustained by the average worker's nest egg, combined with the spectacle of bankers and financial engineers maintaining their lifestyles with multimillion-dollar bonuses while the submerged 99% struggle for oxygen.
------
How much does our economy depend on the rich, anyway, and why shouldn't we soak them good? . . . The original case for a progressive income tax -- that is, one levied disproportionately on larger incomes -- was based less on raising revenue for the state than breaking up concentrations of wealth, inherited and otherwise. The nation's Founding Fathers considered these to be undemocratic -- markers of "an aristocratic society, not a free and virtuous republic," as the tax-law expert Dennis Ventry has written.
------
There's also a social value in suppressing income inequality. In a country with only a slightly less ingrained tradition of civility than the United States, the AIG affair would provoke rioting in the streets.
Ralph
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik19-2009mar19,0,351773.column
Nevermind that Citigroup has explained that this $10M project is part of a global downsizing of their office space and will ultimately save far more money, it makes for inflammatory headlines.
ReplyDeleteAnd, for the cause of changing the system, the worse they look the more impetus there is for Obama and Congress to take advantage of public resentment to effect fundamental changes.
A little outrage never hurt anybody. The furor over the wealth inequity, the excesses, the sense of entitlement, the hubris of it all does the heart good, even if it is a bit late [and monotonous]. Waking up is hard to do, but it does seem like the "big sleep" is ending at last...
ReplyDelete