It's not just the 1%

Lafayette · Jun 9, 2017

From the Guardian: It's not just the 1%. The upper middle class is oppressing everyone else, too

Excerpt:

Residents of the real world most likely know the great American meritocracy is a lie. And yet, we are so heavily indoctrinated that even the most unsurprising revelations can feel shocking. Case in point is the new book Dream Hoarders, which examines the growing gap between rich and poor.

The author, economics professor and Brookings Institution fellow Richard Reeves, notes that while the US has always had a class system, the upper middle class – which he defines as those earning $120,000 a year or more – is not only widening the gap between itself and everyone else, but also hoarding opportunities in a way that makes it difficult for any outsiders to climb up to it. (The 1% is getting richer even more quickly, of course, but there aren’t enough of them to hoard opportunities on a mass scale.)

While people like Donald Trump would like you to think the American economy is a magical font of money that will bless every last citizen who deserves it, the truth is it’s a zero-sum game; there are only so many good jobs, spots in elite colleges and tony area codes to go around.

And the top 20% have set things up to guarantee virtually all of those spoils go to their children, as well as their children’s children, leaving the bottom 80% little to work with. Society is growing increasingly segmented along class lines, which intersects a great deal with race in a horrid Venn diagram of oppression.

As Reeves notes, this is not usually due to direct classism, although he’s appalled that American universities admit to giving preferential treatment to “legacy” students. Rather, those who got a head start in life are set up to succeed from the very beginning, when they attend well-funded public elementary schools, to the middle, when they get internships because of who they know. (I would also add that only the upper crust can afford to do unpaid internships.)

By the time they enter the job market, they have considerable advantages over everyone else. And then they inherit vast sums of wealth. All the while, they use the myth of meritocracy to justify their position.

On a micro level, these behaviors are understandable. What parent wouldn’t do everything in their power to ensure the best possible life for their children? But carried out on a mass level, they lead to what Reeves characterizes as “a less competitive economy, as well as a less open society”.

So what’s to be done?

Upper-income taxation in the US is the bane of the nation. It incarcerates people in Poverty for extended periods of time. The rate of Americans below the Poverty Threshold ($24K income for a family of four) has been constant (around 14% of the population) since around 1965. That is unacceptable in any nation.

And it all got worse in the 1980s, when Reckless Ronnie (along with the connivance of the opposition) changed fundamentally upper-income taxation rates. Which shifted even more quickly Income into Wealth. We can expect no change whatsoever from this present Replicant Triumvirate in power (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) that will only worsen the plight of the poor.

Let's not forget that Wealth remains the personal property of families forever (until they lose it). If it "trickles down", it is within families.

Taxed Income, otoh, returns to the economy and, for instance, could be spent on a National Health System and Free Tertiary Education that would benefit the country universally ...

Crovax · Jun 9, 2017

I remember this thread the 1st time you posted it

The American dream? Top 20% pulling away from the rest, study finds

Lafayette · Jun 9, 2017

THE "M-I-C"

For sure, we need not as a nation be spending 54% of the Discretionary Budget on just the DoD:

discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png

We have other priorities far more important than defending the nation from supposed "enemies of America". Which is a catch-all phrase used for centuries to stir national feelings regarding "supposed enemies". In fact, its purpose suits only the "MIC" or Military Industrial Complex.

But, until a voters smarten-up about what is happening in LaLaLand on the Potomac, nothing can or will be done as regards national priorities.

Obama discovered that sad fact when he spiked an exploding unemployment rate with ARRA-spending of $830B.

Then, when he wanted to accelerate the expansion, he went to a Replicant HofR (where all spending issues begin) to obtain more money. What he got from a Replicant HofR was a mindless lecture on "Austerity Budgeting" to maintain the Debt. (See here from The Nation.).

For which, the US economy took an EXTRA FOUR LONG YEARS to start creating jobs. See Bureau of Labor Statistics "Employment-to-population Ratio" here ...

Crovax · Jun 9, 2017

Lafayette said:
THE "M-I-C"

For sure, we need not as a nation be spending 54% of the Discretionary Budget on just the DoD:

We have other priorities far more important than defending the nation from supposed "enemies of America". Which is a catch-all phrase used for centuries to stir national feelings regarding "supposed enemies". In fact, its purpose suits only the "MIC" or Military Industrial Complex.

But, until a voters smarten-up about what is happening in LaLaLand on the Potomac, nothing can or will be done as regards national priorities.

Obama discovered that sad fact when he spiked an exploding unemployment rate with ARRA-spending of $830B.

Then, when he wanted to accelerate the expansion, he went to a Replicant HofR (where all spending issues begin) to obtain more money. What he got from a Replicant HofR was a mindless lecture on "Austerity Budgeting" to maintain the Debt. (See here from The Nation.).

For which, the US economy took an EXTRA FOUR LONG YEARS to start creating jobs. See Bureau of Labor Statistics "Employment-to-population Ratio" here ...

Red herring, defense spending as a % of GDP is as low as it has been since before ww2

Greenbeard · Jun 9, 2017

As Reeves notes, this is not usually due to direct classism, although he’s appalled that American universities admit to giving preferential treatment to “legacy” students. Rather, those who got a head start in life are set up to succeed from the very beginning, when they attend well-funded public elementary schools, to the middle, when they get internships because of who they know. (I would also add that only the upper crust can afford to do unpaid internships.)

By the time they enter the job market, they have considerable advantages over everyone else. And then they inherit vast sums of wealth. All the while, they use the myth of meritocracy to justify their position.

Coming from a well-off family will always have advantages. There's no program that can "fix" that, that's a reality of social relationships among human beings.

joG · Jun 9, 2017

Lafayette said:
From the Guardian: It's not just the 1%. The upper middle class is oppressing everyone else, too

Excerpt:

Upper-income taxation in the US is the bane of the nation. It incarcerates people in Poverty for extended periods of time. The rate of Americans below the Poverty Threshold ($24K income for a family of four) has been constant (around 14% of the population) since around 1965. That is unacceptable in any nation.

And it all got worse in the 1980s, when Reckless Ronnie (along with the connivance of the opposition) changed fundamentally upper-income taxation rates. Which shifted even more quickly Income into Wealth. We can expect no change whatsoever from this present Replicant Triumvirate in power (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) that will only worsen the plight of the poor.

Let's not forget that Wealth remains the personal property of families forever (until they lose it). If it "trickles down", it is within families.

Taxed Income, otoh, returns to the economy and, for instance, could be spent on a National Health System and Free Tertiary Education that would benefit the country universally ...

Never let a false argument die, huh?

joG · Jun 9, 2017

Greenbeard said:
Coming from a well-off family will always have advantages. There's no program that can "fix" that, that's a reality of social relationships among human beings.

At least the Lenin/Trotzki crowd tried.

joG · Jun 9, 2017

Crovax said:
Red herring, defense spending as a % of GDP is as low as it has been since before ww2

Were you to take the spending of NATO allies in comparison, you would find the secutity free riding has been simply Huge over time and has outside of military exports become a major competitive disadvantage for the USA. Were one to add in the loss of life and limb and the level of constant drag on the economy of Veterans' Benefits, then places like Germany look much less "friendly" and makes driving a BMW almost sleazy.

I'm Supposn · Jun 9, 2017

Lafayette,refer to
https://www.google.com/search?q=fed...qocM:&imgrc=r7uoimln8wicXM:&spf=1496997882302

Sources of federal government’s revenues, 3-year average 2009 – 2011.
44.21% Individual income taxes.
39% Social Security taxes, (employees and employers each pay 7.65% of payroll based taxes).
8% Corporate taxes.
///////////////////////////

FICA is the most regressive federal tax. It’s particularly a greater proportional burden upon the working poor and their dependents.

I’m a proponent that the half of the payroll’s 12.4 earmarked for Social Security, and the entire 2.9% earmarked for Medicare, be revenue neutrally transformed from a payroll to what would effectively be a 4.55% general sales tax and enable revenue neutral reduction of our income taxing of individuals. (The transformation itself would effectively be reduction of taxes upon enterprises by 4.55% of their payrolls).

[Individual’s taxable incomes could be reduced by a finite amount per taxpayer and dependent. that finite amount should be pegged to a cost-price index number and annually monitored. This would effectively greatly reduce the numbers of income earners subject to individual income taxes].

This proposal would not increase net taxes upon the working poor and their dependents; it would increase the federal revenues available for Social Security and Medicare; it would increase both the amounts net federal taxes proportional to incomes paid by those earning greater than median incomes and recover some of the revenues now lost due to income tax evasion.

This would be of net benefit to our economic and social wellbeing and hopefully would enable states to increase their benefits for the unemployed poor; otherwise it would be of some detriment to the unemployed poor.

Respectfully, Supposn

ALiberalModerate · Jun 9, 2017

I grew up in poverty, not poor, in poverty. We are in the upper middle class income demographic today. The best way to move from poverty / working poor, to the upper middle class is to:

1. Be educated or trained for a high income / high demand field such as IT or a Health field.

2. Be willing to move to where job opportunities are, even if it's hundreds or thousands of miles from where you grew up, even if its hundreds or thousands of miles away from your family and the friends you grew up with. (you need to do this before you have kids as its much hard to do it then)

3. A strong work ethic. Its much harder to work your way out of poverty than it is to be born upper middle class.

Outside of education scholarships and grants, I don't know of any potential government programs that would help you with any of those as they are basically life choices that an individual has to make. For example, being willing to move away from family and friends to be in an area with good opportunities is something you just have to choose to do.

Lafayette · Jun 10, 2017

Crovax said:
Red herring, defense spending as a % of GDP is as low as it has been since before ww2

And so is the lowest spending on National Education.

You refuse to believe the factual evidence: Forty-five percent of those in high-school today WILL NEVER OBTAIN A POST-SECONDARY DEGREE by which they could access a decent-job at decent-pay!

Because it is too damn expensive.

How many times must you be told that simple fact of education-in-America today ... ?

Celebrity · Jun 11, 2017

Crovax said:
Red herring, defense spending as a % of GDP is as low as it has been since before ww2

So... because... wait, how is a war machine proportional to a business? What you posted doesn't make sense, except in the paranoid sense that our economy would collapse without spending a quarter of your tax dollars on putting tanks in the desert, or perhaps by the blunt and flawed logic that businesses fund the military. Taxation may draw money from businesses, but it's no red herring that the military comprises a large portion of discretionary spending.

160418111222-where-your-2015-income-tax-dollar-went-780x439.jpg

It's not just the 1%

Pragmatist