top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Inequalities, Taxes, and More Inequalities

by By Ann Robertson and Bill Leumer (sanfrancisco [at] workerscompass.org)
Thanks to Occupy, most working people are well aware of the growing inequalities in wealth. But for those who lack the specifics, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich provides a useful overview:
“…the rich have been getting a larger and larger portion of total income. From 9 percent in 1980, the top 1 percent's take increased to 23.5 percent by 2007. CEOs who in the 1970s took home 40 times the compensation of average workers now rake in 350 times.” (“Confessions of a Class Warrior,” August 22, 2010).
During roughly the same period, however, hourly wages declined by more than 7 percent. (Robert Frank, “Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore,” The New York Times, October 16, 2010).

In other words, not only are the rich getting richer, the rest of us are getting poorer.

What has Contributed to Increased Inequality?

Many factors have converged to produce these trends. Good-paying manufacturing jobs have migrated overseas. Technology has replaced many other good-paying jobs. More importantly, across the country many unions have demonstrated an overwhelming willingness to accept concessions without waging a struggle, thereby contributing to the growing inequalities. This willingness to give up hard won gains in turn has resulted in the continuing decline of union membership, which now stands at 8 percent. Who would want to join a union and pay dues only to make concessions? (In contrast, in the 1930s when unions were staging all-out fights for better pay and working conditions, and winning, union membership surged.) The decline of unions signifies the loss of a powerful weapon that can be used to defend the standard of living of the working class.

But the government has played an especially insidious role in contributing to growing inequalities. In their book, “Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class” (2010), Professors Jacob Hacker (Yale) and Paul Pierson (U.C. Berkeley) argued that changing tax rates has been a major factor underlying growing inequality.

Former New York Times columnist Bob Herbert provided a summary of their conclusions: “The authors … argue persuasively that the economic struggles of the middle and working classes in the U.S. since the late 1970s were not primarily the result of globalization and technological changes but rather a long series of policy changes in government that overwhelmingly favored the very rich. Those changes were the result of increasingly sophisticated, well-financed and well-organized efforts by the corporate and financial sectors to tilt government policies in their favor, and thus in favor of the very wealthy. From tax laws to deregulation to corporate governance to safety net issues, government action was deliberately shaped to allow those who were already very wealthy to amass an ever increasing share of the nation’s economic benefits” (“Fast Track to Inequality,” November 1, 2010).

Others have concurred in this assessment of the role of the government: “The state and federal governments are largely responsible for the widening gap between the rich and poor in the United States and should institute policy changes – including reforms to the tax code and more investment in education – to help reverse this 30-year trend, economists and researchers told state lawmakers Wednesday” (The San Francisco Chronicle, Marisa Lagos, December 8, 2011, “Government Gets Blamed for Widening Wealth Gap”).

Government policy, then, is playing a decisive role in creating and accelerating the rate of inequality. The rich have taken full advantage of their wealth to lobby the politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — in order to secure passage of legislation that redistributes wealth from the working class and the poor to themselves. Consequently, while the wealth of the rich is soaring, their taxes are plummeting, further exacerbating inequalities and creating a vicious cycle: more money pays for more lobbying which creates more money.

Increased Taxation on the the Non-Wealthy

Meanwhile, even though the income of working people and the poor has declined, their taxes have actually increased.

Robert Reich again provides a helpful summary of these trends: “Yet even as their share of the nation’s total income has withered, the tax burden on average workers has grown. They’re shelling out a far bigger chunk of incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes than 30 years ago. It’s just the opposite for the superrich. Over the last three decades, the richest 1 percent’s share of national income has doubled (from 10 percent in 1981 to well over 20 percent now). The share going to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent has tripled. And they’re doing better than ever. The median pay for top executives at 200 major companies was $9.6 million last year, topping pre-recession highs. Total compensation on Wall Street hit a record $135 billion. The heads of the top 25 hedge funds made almost $1 billion each. Yet, remarkably, tax rates on the very rich have plummeted. From the 1940s until 1980, the top income-tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it’s 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II” (“Wealthy Americans not paying fair share of taxes,” April 17, 2011).

Effects of Tax Trends

Declining taxes on the rich have devastated state and local budgets, causing chronic budget deficits. David Cay Johnston explains: “Tax sheltering has cost states more than a third of their revenue from taxes on corporate profits, a new study showed yesterday, adding to the severe strain on state finances across the country” (“Business Tax Shelters a Drain on States’ Finances, Study Says, The New York Times, July 16, 2003).

And this has led to one more brutal phase of the struggle between working people and the rich. Instead of raising taxes on the rich so that government programs could be properly funded, politicians have been swayed by the rich — despite their surging income — to go after everyone but them. Accordingly, public education has been cut, vital social services have been slashed, public pensions have been underfunded, and the list goes on, negatively impacting almost all working people in one way or another.

The Corporate Media’s Role

The corporate media has been playing a vital role in this struggle conducted by the rich. While reporting that inequalities in wealth have grown and taxes on the rich have declined, when it comes to budget deficits and underfunded pension funds, they conveniently fail to connect these problems to the tax structure, leading their readers to believe that there simply is no money anywhere available in society or the problem lies with too generous pensions, despite the fact that in California, for example, “almost half of California workers will face significant economic hardship in retirement” (Kathleen Pender, “California Workers to Face Hardships in Retirement,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 2011).

An Alternative Approach

In order to defend themselves and the kind of services that government should provide, working people need to mount a massive movement with a central demand: “Tax the Rich!” Of course, in the current period, only the unions have the resources and ability to organize such a campaign. Thus far many have chosen to provide only lip service to the idea of raising taxes on the rich while, instead, devoting their money and energy to electing Democrats to office, who then accept money from large corporations and the rich, who in turn demand more tax breaks. Meanwhile, union membership continues to fall.

It is time for the union movement to reclaim its historic role as the defender of working people and rise up to create a movement —independent of the politicians — by organizing huge demonstrations to demand higher taxes on the rich. This movement could then serve as the first step in the creation of an independent labor party that would represent not just union members but all the 99%.

About the Authors

Ann Robertson is a Lecturer at San Francisco State University and a member of the California Faculty Association. Bill Leumer is a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 853 (ret.). Both are writers for Workers Action and may be reached at sanfrancisco [at] workerscompass.org.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Eugene Patrick Devany (EugenePatrickDevany [at] gmail.com)
It seems voters can count on conservatives and Tea Party people to oppose most special business tax breaks and there is bipartisan agreement from entrenched Republicans and Democrats to delay doing the right thing until real tax reform begins. All sides know the government needs more tax revenue and have focused on eliminating some of the annual $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures. Mr. Romney’s proposal for a 20% tax rate cut would require a reduction of 56% to 65% just to remain revenue neutral.

Democrats also advocate for tax hikes on high earners with the belief that no amount of tax expenditure reform will produce the additional revenue that is needed. The Democratic position cannot be reconciled with the Republican objective of reducing the tax rate for high earners so that almost everyone pays the same rate. With admitted oversimplification, Republicans would have workers pay 10% on their income and 15% payroll tax while the well-to-do above the payroll tax threshold pay 25%. It amounts to a clever way of implementing the Forbes flat tax. In practice, the well-to-do would keep sufficient tax expenditures (including deferral) so that they would never have to pay as much as their workers (to the great dismay of Mr. Buffet).

Choosing the best approach to tax reform requires some appreciation for our strengths (wealth) and weakness (wealth, jobs, poverty, government spending). Wealth is a strength because the U.S has a staggering $62.86 trillion (2012 Q2). Wealth is a weakness because the tax code has redistributed wealth to the top for 20 years. According to a July 2012 report from the Congressional Research Service, in 1995 the top 10% of the country had 67.8% of the country’s wealth while the bottom 50% shared only 3.6% ($1,912 billion [in 2010 dollars]). The bottom share eroded to 2.5% before the Great Recession of 2007 and by 2010 it had tumbled to 1.1% ($584 billion) – (a 70% loss of $1,333 billion over 15 years). The loss of wealth to the bottom half the country was offset by a 6.7% gain ($3,558 billion) for the top 10%. A wealth distribution (“wealth gap”) of this extreme has not been seen in the U.S. since the Great Depression of 1929 (when unemployment was also as bad). Top income tax rates were increased from 24% to: 63%, 79%, 81%, 88% and finally to 94% in 1944 in order to correct the economic imbalance.

Today payroll taxes make conditions worse than in 1929 because they add 7 ½% to the cost of each job (business share) and further reduce consumer spending power by 7 ½% (employee share). This 15% tax on jobs is the main reason why the economy is less resilient to recession. Replacing payroll taxes with a 2% net wealth tax (excluding $15,000 cash and retirement funds) is the tough medicine needed to create millions of jobs through increased consumption. University of Chicago Economics Professor, Casey Mulligan, estimated in September 2011 that each, “percentage-point reduction in employers’ [payroll] costs raises employment by about a percentage point and real gross domestic product by about 0.7 percentage points”.

Income tax expenditures (“loopholes”) would be unnecessary if the tax rate was lowered to 8% (and capital gains, estate and gift taxes were eliminated). These changes encourage maximum business development (by eliminating all artificial “tax” excuses against investment) and complement the healthy negative reinforcement (“use it or lose it”) of the wealth tax (which encourages productive use of capital rather than idle consumption).

Completing the perfect tax reform plan would be a 4% value added tax (VAT) on business and an 8% corporate income tax rate for the most competitive business rates in the world. [Foreign profits would return to the U.S. and pass-through business rates would be equalized].

Let us know at http://www.TaxNetWealth.com if you can identify a logical, legal or economic reason why this 2-4-8 Tax Blend would not produce a sustainable economic recovery as promised. Otherwise let your representatives in Washington know that the right blend of taxes can create jobs without government spending.

Eugene Patrick Devany, JD, MPA
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$210.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network