General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRedistributing wealth upward
y Harold Meyerson, Published: September 25, 2012
Which is the more redistributionist of our two parties? In recent decades, as Republicans have devoted themselves with laser-like intensity to redistributing Americas wealth and income upward, the evidence suggests the answer is the GOP.
The most obvious way that Republicans have robbed from the middle to give to the rich has been the changes they wrought in the tax code reducing income taxes for the wealthy in the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, and cutting the tax rate on capital gains to less than half the rate on the top income of upper-middle-class employees.
The less widely understood way that Republicans have helped redistribute wealth to the already wealthy is by changing the rules. Markets dont function without rules, and the rules that Republican policymakers have made since Ronald Reagan became president have consistently depressed the share of the nations income that the middle class can claim.
Part of the intellectual sleight-of-hand that Republicans employ in discussions of redistribution is to reserve that term solely for government intervention in the market that redistributes income downward. But markets redistribute wealth continuously. In recent decades, markets have redistributed wealth from manufacturing to finance, from Main Street to Wall Street, from workers to shareholders. Rules made by pro-market governments (including those of pro-market Democrats) have enabled these epochal shifts. Free trade with China helped hollow out manufacturing; the failure to regulate finance enabled Wall Street to swell; the opposition to labors efforts to reestablish an even playing field during organizing campaigns has all but eliminated collective bargaining in the private sector.
The conservative counter to such liberal cavils is to assert that the market increases wealth, which will eventually descend on everyone as the gentle rains from heaven. Decrying such Keynesian notions as unions or federally established minimum wages, hedge fund guru Andy Kessler recently argued in the Wall Street Journal that it is workers productivity that drives long-term wage gains, not workers wages that drive growth.
But Kessler assumes and this is the very essence of the trickle-down argument that workers reap the rewards of productivity gains. Believing and asserting that requires either ignorance or willful denial of economic history. The only time in U.S. history when workers substantially benefited from productivity gains was the three decades that followed World War II, when median household income and productivity gains both increased by 102 percent. Not coincidentally, that was also the only period of genuine union power in U.S. history, and the time when the tax code was at its most progressive. During the past quarter-century, as progressivity was lessened and unions diminished, all productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent, according to research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. In 1955, at the height of union strength, the wealthiest 10 percent received 33 percent of the nations personal income. In 2007, they received 50 percent, Economic Policy Institute data show.
If thats not redistribution, I dont know what is.
............................................clip
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-party-that-truly-believes-in-redistribution/2012/09/25/c5877b7a-0740-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
Fridays Child
(23,998 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Money is made for transactions. If it's not circulating then it's not fulfilling its purpose.
We (humans) invented it so we can also choose where to circulate it.
(What I mean is that if we want a prosperous middle class majority, like we used to have in first world countries, we can choose to return to policies that promote that).