The pseudo-Marxist demonization of the rich has long been a staple of Democratic Party political tactics, as we've seen in the latest wrangling over extending the Bush tax cuts. Even Republicans engage in it from time to time. Why? Because it resonates with many people. Almost everyone has at least one stereotypical rich person they despise, whether it be someone who makes millions and is famous for being famous, an incompetent CEO who runs his company into the ground and walks away with a golden parachute, an overpaid under-performing athlete, a greedy corrupt politician, or whoever. The list goes on. Envy is a natural human emotion. People tend to be jealous of those who have far more, especially if they feel that the wealth is somehow undeserved. But the latest round has gone even further than usual, with Democrats defining anyone making over $250,000 a year as wealthy, and the repeated use of the term "working Americans" for those who make less -- as if they are the only ones working hard.
In reality, most people making more than $250,000 a year got that way through a combination of hard work and smarts. Most of them work harder than the poor -- that's why they aren't poor. And if they don't have to work hard now, it's because they spent years working and saving, and now have investments that alleviate the need to work. I've seen this from personal experience. I've dealt with small business owners who also work a full-time job, plus have several rental properties. They make 250k+ but they work all the time, shuttling between business interests. Owner-operators of small businesses work like slaves, especially if they actually want to make any money. I've personally worked many low-end jobs, and from what I've observed, much of the so-called working class doesn't work nearly as hard. The idea that the lower classes are hard-working and the wealthy are not is mostly backwards. It's painful for people to hear and admit that they are where they are because of their own failings and poor decisions, and that the wealthy are rich because they were smarter. It's much easier to demonize them. It's something to think about the next time some politician refers to "working Americans" and implies that only people making less than a certain figure qualify.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I actually find myself agreeing with most of this; the vast majority of the rich did work hard for their money. However, the top 25% of the country does control 90% of the wealth and bring home 60+% of the pay. That right there is all the rationale needed to justify taxing the rich at a high rate. Such an income inequality is dangerous.
ReplyDelete"I actually find myself agreeing with most of this; the vast majority of the rich did work hard for their money."
ReplyDeleteYes. Many of the very rich, such as big-time CEO's, are extreme workaholics. They have all the money they'd ever need by the standards of most people, but they are driven to work at what they do. They can't just sit around and enjoy their money.
"However, the top 25% of the country does control 90% of the wealth and bring home 60+% of the pay. That right there is all the rationale needed to justify taxing the rich at a high rate."
The wealthy already pay higher tax rates, and pay the majority of all taxes collected. The fact that they make so much more is no justification for having the government seize more of their money by force.
"Such an income inequality is dangerous. "
I don't see any basis for that conclusion as it pertains to the U.S.
Maybe the solution to all this is simply to decrease the size of government and government spending. If the Founders knew how much it cost to run government for even a day they'd quake.
ReplyDelete"I don't see any basis for that conclusion as it pertains to the U.S."
ReplyDeleteEssentially, this: right now, money is power in the political spectrum. Political campaigns are incredibly expensive to run, and unless you are independently wealthy, you're going to need to do a lot of fund-raising. Since a quarter of the population is sitting on 90% of the money, they're going to be able to donate much more than anyone else, giving them quite a bit of influence. This is to say nothing of the influence wielded by corporate PAC's.
Furthermore, high levels of income inequality have negative effects on society in general; it stratifies society and makes class warfare much more likely.
"Maybe the solution to all this is simply to decrease the size of government and government spending."
ReplyDeleteThat would be nice, but instead it keeps on growing.
"Essentially, this: right now, money is power in the political spectrum. Political campaigns are incredibly expensive to run, and unless you are independently wealthy, you're going to need to do a lot of fund-raising. Since a quarter of the population is sitting on 90% of the money, they're going to be able to donate much more than anyone else, giving them quite a bit of influence. This is to say nothing of the influence wielded by corporate PAC's."
That's true, but so what? The wealthy/upper classes have always dominated politics. It's just reality that being wealthy brings certain advantages. None of that is going to change one bit with higher taxes.
"Furthermore, high levels of income inequality have negative effects on society in general"
So do high taxes that punish success. And I disagree with your fundamental assumption. There is nothing inherently bad about income inequality as long as the system has legal equalilty of opportunity.