Skip to comments.Republicans Need to Get to Know Their Enemies on Income Inequality
Posted on 04/28/2014 6:18:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
Know thine enemy. Uttered most famously a millennia and a half ago by famed warrior/philosopher Sun Tzu, the advice holds up well, even, and especially, when the battles are ideological. So what is the thinking behind the rights utter refusal to actually engage with the lefts actual position on inequality?
The Federalists Ben Domenech wants us to know that in reality, inequality doesnt matter. Of course what matters is entirely subjective. It would make more sense for Ben to try to persuade those who think it does why they shouldnt. But that would require that Ben understood why inequality matters to people.
Heres his summation of his opponents view:
The left continues to operate on an a priori assumption that income inequality/wealth concentration is a bad thing, because of those riches backstroking through their money. But thats just a jealousy trope.
In fact, Googleing income inequality brings up a host of non-jealousy related reasons to care about it. One reason is that it hurts economic growth when the rich see their incomes rise but the poor dont. The reason? The poor spend their extra wages, unlike the wealthy. Another reason is that income inequality hurts class mobility by making it more difficult for kids to go to college.
It may be that saving and investing are just as good, if not better, for economic growth than spending. And I tend to believe that college is generally extremely overrated as a tool for mobility.
But to dismiss concerns as simple class warfare is unhelpful.
According to Pew Research, Americans in the upper fifth of the income distribution earn 16.7 times as much as those in the lowest fifth by far the widest such gap among the 10 advanced countries in the Pew Research Centers 2013 global attitudes survey.
This matters to Democrats, but not Republicans. Pew again:
More than half (55%) of Republicans said the economic system is fair to most people, but majorities of Democrats (75%) and independents (63%) said it favors the wealthy. And 61% of Democrats and 50% of independents said the gap was a very big problem, versus only 28% of Republicans.
Heres where the Republican messaging machine could go Sun Tzu on the Democrats and win converts. Forty-five percent of Republicans and the vast majority of Democrats and independents said the economic system favors the wealthy. This is true! From licensure requirements to tax breaks to onerous regulations to the incredibly regressive payroll tax, which takes a huge chunk out of your first dollar earned and actually has a cap, like it or not, government economic policies shape our economy and many of these policies absolutely favor the wealthy.
Republicans get trapped into thinking that because some level of inequality is a feature of capitalism, we shouldnt care about it. And I sympathize with the view that a rising tide lifts all boats, so the focus should be on growing the pie, not making sure its divided evenly.
But its no disavowal of capitalism to admit that the current levels of inequality arent right, fair, or the result of the free-market at work. For example, if creative destruction werent thwarted by bailouts, wed probably wouldnt see CEOs paid many multiples of worker compensation to preside over failing firms.
Its the defense the free market deserves to point this stuff out, instead of misrepresenting why people care about it in the first place. Maybe, in a truly free market, inequality wouldnt matter to most people. Were not in one. Admitting that fact is the first step to getting on the same page.
Today from Pope Francis: “Inequality is the root of social evil.”
Oh my...if the Pope supposedly is infallible, how can he make such a demonstrably false declaration.
Evil is the root of social evil.
Personally I think the bail outs need to be paid back with interest.
I agree, but I doubt that’s going to happen. We’ll be lucky to get the bailouts paid back
Republicans should agree with Dems that things have become worse for us under Obama’s 5+ years (due to his bad policies), they don’t have to disagree on everything.
House marked slowing, record #s of Americans not working, gas, food prices rising.
And yes a few are doing extremely well, under Obama.
Neo-patrimonialism “form of organisation in which relationships of a broadly patrimonial type pervade a political and administrative system which is formally constructed on rational-legal lines.” It is a system in which an office of power is used for personal uses and gains, as opposed to a strict division of the private and public spheres.
Explains the failure of third world countries. It’s here and very proficient.
Agree. Regressives don’t mind being rich; they just don’t want anyone else becoming rich.
Obama admin is the prime example of a patrimonial kakocracy. Rule by the worst of society who endlessly promote and enrich each other. The type of corruption found in many African and Latin nations, and also in America’s ‘RAT-run cities.
My idea is a simple one: provide a tax break for companies and corporations, over and above the existing exemption, who distribute profit sharing to all full-time (and perhaps part-time) employees. An additional tax write-off of, say 33 percent of the bonus pay-out, would encourage employers to put more money into the hands of their employees, and not just in the hands of managers and directors.
I'm sure the Congressional Budget Office would need to run the numbers, but my gut feel is that the increase in cash flow through the lower echelons will spur an increase in spending that will be a positive for the economy -- how much of an increase would be a question for the analysts. If the profit-sharing were based on a combination of compensation and merit, the bonuses would reward good work that adds to the bottom line of the company.
Stock options for employees could provide further incentives to front-line employees to work smarter and more efficiently. And, it would give the employees equity in the company.
Those companies who don't want to participate, don't have to. Unlike Obamacare, you don't need to coerce everyone into doing this. We already know, from past experience with other incentive programs, that companies will willingly go the extra mile to take advantage of these incentives.
The loss on corporate taxes will be made up by the increase in individual taxes, especially when spending goes up. There is a multiplier in action here: instead of the money going into storage, it gets out in the retail economy.
When it comes to church doctrine, the Pope is infallible. Saying that "inequality is the root of social evil," may not necessarily be false. Many in the lower socio-economic classes turn to drugs, theft, prostitution, and a number of other "social evils" because of unequal situations.
You present the Pope's comment out of context, so I don't know what his proposed solution to "inequality" is. I also know that coveting what isn't yours, and that making the most of one's talents are also covered somewhere under church doctrine, so I would hope that he's at least consistent with his proposal.
In keeping with the author's main theme on Sun Tzu's admonition to know your enemy, Ms. Reisenwitz should better know that the lieberals don't care about "this stuff". She's very naive. They only care about class warfare helping form their campaign themes to use human envy to win votes. It is NOT a misrepresentation to point out that the democRATS don't care about the people currently in the lower rungs of the economic spectrum. In fact, they want to KEEP THEM THERE. Poor, dependent, dissatisfied and envious ... only for the purpose of their votes.
That said, perceptions are important and Conservatives would do well to articulate that we actually do care and that as Milton Friedman has put so well ... the record of history is absolutely crystal clear ... that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people, that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
The pope must invoke his charism of infallibility, and be speaking with respect to faith and morals, for his teaching to be regarded as infallible. The occasions are few and far between.
Otherwise, his statements should be taken with the seriousness due his office.
He posted it as a Tweet, with no context. The danger and error of making sweeping, 140-character pronouncements. Poverty can predispose people to immoral or illegal behavior, but it is not the root cause. My parents grew up as poor as church mice, but taught and led by example to be honest and honorable. All cultures are not equal, and never will be.
The bottom line is that the Democrats cannot tax the wealthy into poverty, though they bitterly want to hurt them.
But if at the same time, the biggest potential gains for the wealthy amount to rigged gambling games that “manufacture” money out of nothing, this represents a threat to the economy.
Therefore the solution is to structure taxation and investment away from gambling markets, like derivatives, and into investments that *benefit* the economy, the less wealthy, and even the poor.
The taxation is not direct, but is used to prevent corporations seeking cheap materials and workers overseas, yet profiting from selling these goods in the US markets at high prices.
The bottom line is that, “If you want to sell it here, you make it here. If you want to make it there, your goods will have a tariff slapped on them so that you will make no more money than if you made it here.”
While many people shy away from the idea of tariffs, in fact, this is just the opposite: it is trying to prevent “dumping”, that hurts our domestic production market. It is not protectionism, it is anti-unfair trade practices.
The “free trade internationalist” philosophy that free trade would benefit everyone, has failed even worse than Keynesian economics. In practice, while it has benefited the overseas poor, in most cases it has done so only marginally; and at devastating cost to the American economy.
So now that their painful experiment has run its course, it is time for it to end, despite frantic resistance from the multinational corporations in the US Chamber of Commerce.
Sorry boys, it’s time for this to become an honest casino, not just one where you skim off all the wealth while screwing everyone else.
This is real redistribution of wealth: pumping their investment money back into the US economy, and making a healthy profit while doing so, yet also benefiting Americans with jobs and wealth for them as well.
It’s past time that the wealthy again brag about how many Americans work for them, and how it is making America stronger.
Why don’t the Republicans reply - YES, wage inequality is pretty bad. Sadly, its found in industries which survive off government regulation, rules and subsidy
Therefore, as a first step we are proposing immediately - the closure of the Federal Reserve, and the break-up of Wall Street banks
The author is missing the forest because of a couple of trees.
“Income Inequality” is a complaint against the OUTCOME of people’s attempts to better their own positions. That is the exact opposite of the basis for our nation - which is the availability of OPPORTUNITY to better oneself.
“Income Inequality” is a complaint that the socialist/communist goals of relegating all but the ruling elite to an equally dismal outcome of their efforts to succeed has not yet been realized.
The cited links are from CNBC, NPR, and Pew (twice).
I thought she was trying to appeal to conservative thinkers. Using partisan leftist propaganda to do so marks her as a rube (at best) or a shill.
What is income, anyway? Monetary reward for labor. Whether that labor is manual, physical, mental or all of the above, people use their labor to get rewarded money. But why tax labor?
Why not tax wealth? With a homestead exemption, of course, so they can't steal Grandma's farm.
The super-rich avoid income taxes by not having any income. All the money goes into Trust Funds (TF) that “pay” for all their living, no matter how extravagant. So, why do you need any money when the TF buys the food, pays the chef, provides the 100,000 kitchen, etc, etc? Or perhaps you'd like a Lamborghini? Nice ride. The TF will buy one, and you can drive it. The TF will even pay for a private mechanic, garage and fuel.
Meanwhile, we have American Small Business (SB). SBs are the backbone of the American economy. Yet their owners get an income, often up to $1,000,000. But SB owners must also pay for things from that same income, from buying new machines to hiring workers. Yet it is these folks who bear the brunt of the income tax the most.
People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates—who people like to think of as super-rich, and want them to pay more income tax, and then support democrats in those efforts—actually pay no or very little “income” tax, and these same super rich individuals are always advocating raising income taxes because, hey, it doesn't really effect them. And those political efforts to raise taxes almost always hurt the SB owners the hardest, and this dampens the economy, which in itself affects all those working and middle class people who can't get work--that is, monetary rewards for their labor. The super-rich continue to get richer, as we don't touch THEIR wealth. So wealth (not income!) inequality grows.
So, we need to find a way to tax their so-called tax loopholes, their trust funds, and their wealth rather than the hard work of SB owners.
Addressing "income inequality" is not something that can be answered in a 30-second soundbite. I don't know the full context of the Pope's speech (as originally quoted), nor do I know of what the Pope is suggesting as far as a solution. Claiming that "inequality is a root of social evil" may be somewhat true, but it's a root with many feeders: personal responsibility, moral and spiritual equality, and so forth.
Saying that income inequality leads to social evil is not necessarily untrue. The Pope doesn't have to explain himself every time he speaks, in order to maintain his moral standing.