But let's look at how those people got rich. Most extremely wealthy people start with much less than they end up with. Lloyd Bankfein, for example, attended public primary and secondary schools, lived in subsidized housing, and was the son of a US Postal Service employee. Now he's the CEO of Goldman Sachs.
Obviously, there are exceptions, but most people don't inherit all their money, not in the United States anyway. An industrialist's success depends on quite a few things: a well-developed infrastructure, a trained labor force, a political system that allows entrepreneurs to take risks and (in the US at least) some degree of protectionist policies to keep low-wage and labor-intensive jobs from migrating abroad. Roads, bridges, high schools, universities, and the various economic tools that encourage entrepreneurship and domestic employment are all funded by government. Despite the benefits of these publicly funded enterprises being tilted toward the mega-rich, the poor and middle classes often contribute a higher percentage of their income into the tax system than their employers.
Obama is trying to fix this via the Buffett Rule, based on an editorial by billionaire fund manager Warren Buffett in which he pointed out that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
And that's what the ultra rich oppose - the idea that they should have to pay more, or even the same, percentage of their incomes as the rest of us. They own factories that hire up all the recent graduates of local public high schools, their shipping trucks run on public roads, their fuel and energy prices are kept artificially low by the state and federal subsidies and they are catered to by powerful officials at every level of government.
Let's look again at Lloyd Blankfein, the man whose early success depended entirely on the opportunities afforded to him by public services. Even his father's income at the USPS was subsidized by taxpayers. Fast forward to now. Mr. Blankfein made well over $14 million in 2010, about 417 times the average salary of a worker in the United States, and that was a down year. In 2006, he made $54.4 million; in 2007, he made $54 million. And now, his accumulated wealth hovers around $450 million. This is the same man who once joked that, as a banker, he's "doing God's work." Seeing how extravagantly the Lord must compensate his angels, I guess all the rest of us can do is pray that there's some gold left to pave the streets of Heaven when we get there.
But perhaps that's an unfair example, since Goldman Sachs controls almost $1 trillion in assets, so let's consider something a bit closer to home: Last year in Mississippi, the average CEO earned over $1.8 million in compensation, almost 68 times more than the median income of Mississippi workers. These are the CEOs of businesses like Trustmark, Sanderson Farms, Renasant, Parkway Properties, Hancock Holding, Eastgroup, Callon Petroleum, Cal-Maine Foods, and BancorpSouth. All of these companies rely on public education to provide them with skilled laborers, whether it's a bank teller who went to Ole Miss, a geological engineer from Mississippi State or a line worker who's just earned a high school diploma or GED from a public high school. The companies that have to ship things from their factories to various retail outlets depend on public funds even more.
Imagine how much it would cost Mr. Sanderson if he had to transport his chickens on a privately-funded road, one that would likely charge huge tolls. And how much more would Mr. Patterson at BancorpSouth have to pay in wages if all of his tellers had attended private high schools and colleges instead of federal- and state-subsidized institutions.
Austerity measures had to be implemented at Sanderson Farms after public infrastructure was privatized andaccess to highways was restricted.
All the while, poor and middle class Republicans have been brain-washed by the rich, who have convinced many Americans that it's greedy to ask millionaires to pay their fair share and lazy to expect them to. They cling to faux conservative values that at their very core chip away at the foundation of American democracy. Some of the people who would benefit the most from social programs like better access to family planning, public health insurance, and subsidized education, are the the ones whose opposition to these initiatives is the loudest. It's irrational that a teacher in a public high school would support a Tea Party candidate who thinks the Department of Education is unconstitutional. How can a man whose parents depend on their monthly Medicaid checks justify his support for a candidate who has called that safety net that so many people rely on an unconstitutional Ponzi Scheme?
Obviously there are smart Republicans, but they've listened to rich, well-connected politicians and their disillusioned ilk croak about Jesus and saving babies and death panels so much, that they've actually come to believe that there is somehow a moral - even religious - aspect to our tax code, our debt ceiling and our federal agencies. They've allowed rich people to convince them that a flat tax represents equality, but this is a fallacy. A 15% tax, for example, means a person making $50,000 will take home about $42,500 after income taxes alone. That same flat tax would allow a person who made $10,000,000 to keep $8.5 million. The rich argue that a tax increase would discourage spending and hurt the economy, but riddle me this: Is it logical to believe the spending difference between a man whose net income is 8.5 million dollars and a man whose net income is 5 or 6 million dollars will have any more than a marginal impact on the economy? Maybe he'll buy one less Ferrari that year. A flat tax spread across the entire range of incomes is unjust - equal percentages of income along the earnings spectrum represent vastly unequal financial burdens, and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool.
Unfortunately, the fools today are many, and it's sad that "conservatism" in America has come to be associated with greed and ignorance. I was reading an essay last night by Oscar Wilde, and this quote seemed especially relevant:
"As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and have sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid."
For context, Wilde was discussing how poor people should protest their socio-economic situation, and that suggesting that the impoverished accept additional burdens while the rich soar on the wings of "free market ideals" is insane. Wanting a better life is human nature; accepting a lower standard of living when it's not necessary is irrational. In fact, Wilde finds it "incredible" that "a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws [that make his life harder] can possibly acquiesce in their continuance," even if his "morals" would normally encourage him to do so.
The question, then, is what's more important to you - the welfare of millions or the ability of the uber-rich to shirk their societal obligations under the guise of conservatism and fairness? Those who choose to support an oppressive, backwards ideology that forces them to take on even heavier burdens because it's what they believe is "good and right" - an idea created and propagated by the people it benefits the most - might just be our generation's group of extraordinarily stupid people.
And they are to be pitied, not admired.
No comments:
Post a Comment