| | Here is a recent oped from NY Times: Dont Tax the Rich. Tax Inequality Itself.
Here is my response:
"Enough is enough" and other words of wisdom from Yale and UC Berkeley, the standard-bearers of morality.
We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.
"It would be bad for our democracy if 1-percenters started making 40 or 50 times as much as the median American."
"Specifically, we propose an automatic extra tax on the income of the top 1 percent of earners a tax that would limit the after-tax incomes of this club to 36 times the median household income."
"Importantly, our Brandeis tax does not target excessive income per se; it only caps inequality. Billionaires could double their current income without the tax kicking in as long as the median income also doubles."
"Our grandparents would be shocked to learn that the average income of the 1-percent club has skyrocketed to more than 30 times the median income just as we will be shocked if 20 years from now 1-percenters make 80 times the median, which is where we will be if inequality continues to grow at the current rate unabated."
"As 1-percenters ourselves, we call on Congress, for the sake of democracy, to end the continued erosion of economic equality in our nation."
I am sure the authors had a very scientific way of deriving that magic number of 36. Their credentials leave no room for any doubt. 36 is the multiple that caps the income of the top 1% relative to the median income. 36 is where the red zone starts on our democracy-o-meter. But one may ask, what about 12.5 from 1980? Wasn't that a very good year for democracy? Why keep it at 36, haven't the rich got enough already? After all, aren't we combating income inequality - the biggest threat to our democracy? We must not shock our grandparents with such large numbers, or they may end up the same place our democracy is heading.
So, the cap at 36 is good start to forestall the demise of our society but surely this is not enough to combat the income inequality. We must all pitch in. People on the poor end have a responsibility to finally start making some money. That is why there must be a cap for the bottom 1%. For symmetry's sake, they must make 1/36th of the median income. If not, since they have no money to tax and incentivize them to produce, we must place them in labor camps where they can earn their 1/36th. Why just the bottom 1%? For the sake of equality we must have a progressive scale on the bottom as well as on the top.
Also, the income inequality is really affected by the size of households. You see, people in the bottom quintile are much more likely to live alone than the ones in the top quintile. So, it must be mandated that more of the poor shack up but also more top earners split their households. This will greatly help equalize the incomes - the only guarantee against tyranny.
It really does not help that people live so long. They accumulate their knowledge and experience and therefore are able to command much higher income when older. To equalize that we equally must trim those excesses on both ends. What, do you think those are some drastic measures? By what standard? Not by the standard of income equality, not by the standard of our precious democracy. Of course, the best solution that avoids all complex unpleasantries is to have a universal income multiple of 1. For all people. Everybody with a human DNA should get the same exact median income. This is only way to the absolutely equally dispersed political power as absolute democracy - our ultimate value. And, don't forget the grandparents.
|
|
