TIMOTHY NOAH NOVEMBER 29, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., says Democrats will focus "like a laser" on the issue in 2012. True, Schumer seems more interested in the stagnation of middle incomes (median income declined during the last decade) than in the "upper tail" phenomenon of the top 1 percent, 0.1 percent, and 0.01 percent doubling and tripling their share of the national income since 1979. The latter trends have a lot to do with the financialization of the U.S. economy and lax regulation of Wall Street, and Schumer has long been one of Wall Street's most loyal defenders on Capitol Hill. But Schumer supported Dodd-Frank (though he subsequently tried to water down its regulation of derivatives). I doubt this latest declaration signals an outright conversion to re-regulating Wall Street, but it will be interesting to watch where Schumer goes with it. I'm not one of those people who say that the upper-tail trend is the only part of the income-inequality boom worth paying attention to; educational failure, the decline of unions, and other factors need to be addressed too. But the one percenters' takeover of the U.S. economy is an important part of the story, and you can't really take on income inequality without discussing runaway compensation on Wall Street and in corporate suites.
Making income inequality an issue in 2012 shouldn't be too difficult if some of the one percenters continue to pitch in to do the Democrats' work for them. See, for instance, the following video snippet from a Nov. 17 "We Are The 99 Percent" march in Los Angeles (via Think Progress via the Village Voice via Inner City Media ... see, this is why I don't do hat-tips, because the attribution never freaking ends). I believe this charming gentleman is what Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) would call a "job creator." Joe the Plumber, move over. A new star is born:
6 comments
The thing that's really endearing about the video clip is how the guy firmly believes that he is part of the 1% because of his personal greatness. Not some combination of luck, opportunity and skill or somesuch. I am also not convinced that the portion of the 1% who are corporate flunkies are really great in any meaningful sense of the word. Jobs or Gates, maybe. Not these doofuses.
- miceelf
November 29, 2011 at 11:32am
It's not really about "income inequality". That plays right into that lunatic Republican talking point "The Democrats want to make all incomes EQUAL!". Which of course they don't, but if you label the issue "income inequality" it's much easier for Republicans to make that case. It's about FAIRNESS. It's patently unfair for upper income people to be taxed at 17% for their capital gains income, when the rest of us are taxed at 23%. It's also about balance. It's patently unbalanced to have these upper incomes taxed at such low rates when we have such a huge budget deficit -- caused by the Bush-II tax-cuts in the first place. THAT is the argument that needs to be made.
- AllanL5
November 29, 2011 at 12:17pm
Of course, Jobs and Gates were/are both Democrats.
- Dausuul
November 29, 2011 at 12:35pm
FAIRNESS! EQUAL! TO THE BARRICADES! EPATER LE BOURGEOIS!
- liberalref
November 29, 2011 at 12:35pm
Bill Gates is a Democrat? I never knew. I recall in the later 1990s when the DOJ took Microsoft to court for monopoly abuses, Robert Dole supported this action and wished to see the breakup of Microsoft. Apropos of Dole's sentiment, Gates quipped that Dole "used to be a Republican." That doesn't sound too Democratic to me.
- liberalref
November 29, 2011 at 12:40pm
Surely there is some relationship between the "financialization" of the US economy and the post-1980 increase in inequality. But a simple cause and effect attribution is a radical oversimplification. Suppose we required the big banks to split up and raise their capital ratios and eschew all proprietary risk taking and then also required hedge and private equity funds to disclose all their positions on a regular basis. Do you really think that would have a measurable effect on the gini coefficient of US household income? I doubt it would. I'm not sure what the Government could do to slow, stop, or reverse the trend toward pre-tax income inequality. But increasing taxes on the 1% to raise and strengthen the safety-net under the 99% sure would make inequality a lot easier for the 99% to bear.
- gurwia
November 29, 2011 at 1:00pm