My Dinner With the 1 Percent: The Fight for Higher Wages Means Confronting the Greed of the Rich

[adirondacker]

by
Sonali Kolhatkar

"As fast food workers walked out Thursday yet again for higher wages and the right to union representation, they could count some lawmakers and President Obama as being on their side, verbally championing a higher federal minimum wage. And they have the support of a majority of Americans.

But when it comes to corporate decision makers such as those represented by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they face hostility and ridicule. In fact, as a recent personal experience demonstrated to me, the wealthiest Americans who control the purse strings of corporate America may actually believe the lie that raising wages is unnecessary and that today’s workers are better off than in the past.

A college friend who works as a business executive was passing through Los Angeles, where I live, and invited me to join him for drinks at a restaurant in downtown L.A. so we could catch up. When I arrived, he was still having dinner with some of his work colleagues. Indicating to me that they squarely fit into the category of the famed “1 percent,” he introduced me as his “radical journalist and activist friend.” Aside from me and my friend, there were two white men, one black man and an East Asian woman seated at the table. The restaurant was exceedingly fancy, and the menu consisted of sufficiently haute cuisine dishes, with prices to match. Bottles of expensive wine washed down platters of soft-shell crab, all on the company card.

Soon enough, the conversation veered into a political direction as the men (sadly, the woman didn’t speak up), lamented President Obama’s fiscal policies, which they perceived as excessively harsh toward the rich."


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/05/my-dinner-1-percent-fight-higher-wages-means-confronting-greed-rich

The Conversation is WELL Worth the Read and highly encourage everyone to take the time.

[merrily]

1. Yes, their greed, their vast sense of entitlement.

their lack of gratitude and insight as to what actually made them rich and their empty jingoism.

[adirondacker]

2. This was a great observation from the author, and one I've encountered as well...

"Interestingly, everyone at the table seemed to either have relatively progressive values on issues of racial equality, women’s reproductive rights and even gun control, or were ambivalent on social issues. On economic policies, however, they were united in their defense of the current system of enriching the rich. In fact, so ardent were they in their championing of unfettered capitalism that it seemed to be the moral driving force of the group."

I think it's interesting that these "elites" aren't intelligent enough to deduce that the economic policies are the root cause of the issues that they claim to support.

[merrily]

3. Yep, the culture wars are where politics are at now, for the most part.

Referring to the exploiters of labor, society and the environment as job craters doesn't help anyone either, as the inventors of that term no doubt knew.

[whathehell]

4. Not surprised to hear they were "relatively progressive" on social issues..

Those don't cost them anything -- It's ALL about the money.

[Divernan]

10. That is Hillary's political position in a nutshell!

She'll throw progressives a few bones on issues like gay marriage, or gays in the military where there is no economic threat or cost to the One Percent or her BFFs on Wall Street. As to welcoming gays to serve in the military, the MIC wants all the warm bodies it can get to serve as cannon fodder in its Perpetual War machine, so that position is a win-win for HRC.

[djean111]

15. Exactly! And I am so tired of being told that a few social issues that really do not cost the 1%

a dime are the equivalent of economic issues - even told I am bad because I refuse to see marriage equality as an acceptable ALTERNATIVE to economic justice - as if we could only pick one.

In addition - all social issues and economic issues are now mere electability issues. The actual people who are affected do not matter in the least. They just vote for worthless promises. And some of us here think that is perfectly okay.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Hillary was a vocal opponent of marriage equality for 17 years, she was virtually the last well

known Democrat to give her half stated 'support' less than two years ago. So if you think she threw a bone, it must have been straight dogs dining on it.
People who say social justice issues are not economic issues are people who are served by the current dynamic of injustice. A form of affluenza coupled with toxic impunity syndrome.....
Social justice and economic justice are intertwined and Hillary Clinton never did anything but hinder the progression toward equal marriage rights. The bones she threw were to the right. To the straights. T. She pandered to those who see no value in the rights of minorities.

[JHB]

17. It's the "Divine Right of Maximized Profit"...

They act as if anything other than the current way of doing things is an affront to the natural order, even though it hasn't been all that long since we had another way that worked too, and worked better for most.

Hell, it wasn't even necessarily the rates, but how they were distributed. All progressivity on income taxes for high incomes was eliminated under Reagan and has never been restored:



To put this in All-American terms, money is power, concentrations of money are concentrations of power, and this is about applying checks & balances and separation of powers to that economic power.

[adirondacker]

19. Mmmm, how Divine!

Thanks for the reply and graph (Love it). Excellent points.

[Enthusiast]

20. In other words, they almost could have been described as Third Way Democrats.

[adirondacker]

22. Why the thought never crossed my mind.

[valerief]

33. The progressive is the old man on the park bench feeding the pigeons crumbs.

The elitist is the old man in the back yard shooting pigeons for fun.

The elitist doesn't hate the pigeons. He just enjoys the game of shooting more than the drudgery of saving the pigeons. They're there for his entertainment.

[MaggieD]

5. If I paid 90% in taxes

I would make less than the people that work for me, and possibly not enough to continue to employ them.

Check that - back of the napkin calculation. Definitely not enough to employ anyone. At 90% tax I'm out of business and all 22 employees out of a job.

[gilpo]

6. You are "confusing" a marginal rate with flat rate

If we went back to FDR level taxes, the highest bracket would be at 90%. Plus, the amount you pay to your employees is not included in your income- you know that, I am sure. Disingenuous argument at best.

[brewens]

8. I wouldn't go as high as 90% but you see that kind of argument all the time. A businessman that

conveniently forgets everything he knows about business to argue against even a modest tax increase.

Like with the proposal not too long ago to raise taxes on everyone making over $200,000. You immediately saw people talking about it as if that meant jacking up taxes on a business that grossed that much. That would be a pretty small opperation and they knew damn good and well that wasn't what was being proposed. A one man show grossing that much would be a guy that was lucky to keep 20% and just get by.

It of course applied to someone running a business that managed to cut himself a $200,000 dollar salary or more. That is a totally different situation.

[lunasun]

31. +1

[Enthusiast]

21. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

[MaggieD]

35. I'm just going by the linked article.

"As I left the dinner table, Joe continued to shake his head in amused disbelief over my desire to see wealthy Americans taxed as much as 90 percent. I suggested to him as a parting thought: “Why don’t you simply do what other rich folks do? Hide your money offshore so you don’t have to pay any taxes.” Laughter erupted at the table at my sarcastic comment and my question remained unanswered."

[adirondacker]

7. The key words are "As Much As", and isn't based on your company's gross income.

If you can't make a living being paid more than 10 times the salary of your lowest paid worker I suspect something is out of whack.

[MaggieD]

39. I don't make 10x my workers pay

I make about 3x. Now. When I started the business I didn't get paid a penny for 1.5 years. There wasn't enough left over for me after paying the workers.

I also save a lot in the bank so I can stay in business if there is a downturn. My 22 employees count on me to keep them employed and insured.

[adirondacker]

46. Small business is a relative term which shouldn't be.

I've been in business myself and know the struggles all too well (sole proprietor and managed). I think the point that others and myself are making is that you would not be paying 90% or even close to that given a progressive tax structure. I would be more inclined to thinking you would be paying less "real" tax considering single payer insurance could be part of the system.

I have a problem with "small businesses" that exploit every loophole, treat their employees like fodder, claim multiple bankruptcies, and walk out multimillionaires.

Best wishes and I hope you are successful.

[MaggieD]

48. As I've said....

I'd be in favor of up to a 50% top marginal rate, especially if we passed single payer. But anything over that on any amount of money is not realistic, nor would it be helpful to the economy. Federal tax is not the only tax business owners pay - not by a long shot.

This 90% rate (marginal or not) is just the other side of the extremist arguments right wingers make, IMO.

Edited to add - responding post to this one makes a good point. Personal income over a billion should be subject to very high marginal rates, IMO. Pretty rare, but could happen, I suppose.

[adirondacker]

50. I personally wouldn't have a problem with a 95% tax on billionaires' personal income over the

threshold. (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101859#post17 )It worked for decades in this country from Roosevelt to Kennedy. We are not talking about a business tax.

[MaggieD]

51. Yes, if a marginal rate

Like that was applied to over a billion I'd be for it too. No one needs to make that much. I also like the estate tax. No reason each generation shouldn't have to make their own success.

[adirondacker]

52. The estate tax is in place for the middle class and poor.

The elderly are pretty much signing off their estates to cover medical and nursing costs (see deficit reduction act of 2005). Cheney flew across the planet to sign the tie breaking vote. As for the wealthy, everything is placed in a "trust" long before they incur these expenses.

[MaggieD]

53. It doesn't kick in until after 5 million

Those people are poor? But yes, there are far too many tax dodges available for the ultra wealthy. That is in my opinion what folks banging the drum for huge increases in taxes don't get. We need to get rid of the tax dodges, because if we just raise marginal rates instead the only people paying those rates will be those of us who can't afford $1000 per hour accountants.

[Doctor_J]

11. it's 90% MARGINAL rate, genius

Slowly, so even republicans can get it:

Suppose the 90% tax bracket starts at one million dollars. Suppose further that you make a million and one dollars. Here comes the hard part: YOU ONLY PAY 90% TAX ON ONE DOLLAR.

please leave. Talking to republicans gives me a headache and your stupid rubs off.

[Orrex]

12. Damn. If anyone's wondering what that big scorch mark is...

It's where MaggieD was standing before that epic smackdown.

[Doctor_J]

13. some days grinding my teeth is not enough

[MaggieD]

38. I was tired - I went to bed

So I guess I missed the "epic smack down." Where is it?

[Orrex]

40. If you can't find it, then you're probably still asleep.

[MaggieD]

41. I see it

But I don't understand why you think it's a "smack down."

I'd venture to guess no one responding to me has ever owned a business, or even done the bookkeeping for one. None of you have walked in my shoes. You're just making assumptions. And most of them so far are wrong.

[Orrex]

43. Well, you broadcast your failure to understand basic tax policy

It was kind of downhill from there.

It's not that people are making assumptions about you; it's that they're drawing reasonable conclusions based on the actual text that you've posted. You can hardly blame them for reading what you write.

[MaggieD]

45. No, that's just another assumption you make

Realistically, do you think a small business owner (who probably does their own books) doesn't understand what their EFFECTIVE tax rate is? After labor, taxes (many forms of them) are the largest expense in my business. How can anyone run a business and not understand the impact of taxes?

Regardless, marginal or not, there is a point where the effective tax rate is so high that it will drive people out of business.

And clearly, none of you in this sub thread understand that federal tax is only one form of tax a business pays.

[Orrex]

47. I assumed nothing.

From the wording of your posts, I inferred that you failed to understand basic tax policy. You have not yet convinced me (nor anyone else in the thread, apparently) that this inference is mistaken.

How can anyone run a business and not understand the impact of taxes?

I suppose that they would run such a business badly. Happens all the time, in fact.

And clearly, none of you in this sub thread understand that federal tax is only one form of tax a business pays.

Now that's an assumption. Nicely illustrated!


Incidentally... 13 years and just 137 posts?
Hmm...

[MaggieD]

49. We'll see, you are making assumptions.

Let's start with my post count. I'll copy and paste from my journal:

"Been here since 2001 (the beginning) and have read here everyday. Thousands of posts, but some Kerry supporter MIRT moderator tombstoned me back in 2005 because I had the temerity to say, 6 months after the election, that Kerry ran a bad campaign in 2004 because he wouldn't stick up for his military record and got swiftboated. I was suggesting we nominate someone with a stronger spine next time if we wanted to win.

I took advantage of the recent amnesty that allowed me to sign back up."

Next: Businesses run that badly go out of business. No business survives without understanding its costs.

Lastly: okay, can any of you list all the various taxes businesses pay? I know I was surprised by it when I crunched the numbers in deciding to start my business 15 years ago. I even pay one tax that is on gross income, and is owed even if I don't make a dime of profit (which was exactly the case the first 1.5 years).

[JHB]

18. It's like this (adjusted for inflation)

[Enthusiast]

23. +1 an entire shit load.

[Doctor_J]

24. then of course it is the adjusted income

So if maggied deducts her mortgage interest, charity, dependents, etc. and STILL makes a million and one dollars, she'll be on the hook for 90 cents. Plus the 90% bracket will likely start at at least 3 million.

Teh stupid gives me gas

[adirondacker]

28. Christmas bonus will have to be reduced to one cornish hen instead of a turkey.

[Enthusiast]

29. It's real. I can relate two instances where

we went from the choice of a ham or turkey to no choice and no Christmas bonus of any kind. Then the private equity group closed them up entirely after milking them of any and all value.

Can you say Charles Dickens like?

[adirondacker]

30. I know all too well...

Even my Rush Limpball listening neighbor proclaimed the company he worked for gave out $5-10,000 during the late 80's and is now giving out hams. Meanwhile the same company is outsourcing half their work to China.

I've never been privileged to obtain a "bonus".

[MaggieD]

42. The incorrect assumptions...

.... Give a headache. It's as farcical as the right wing nuts that think we should abolish the minimum wage and lower the tax rate to basically nothing. You're simply advocating the flip side of the extremist coin.

[MaggieD]

36. Well it's not realistic to think...

...that people who own businesses don't understand marginal tax rate structures. And I'm not a republican so I won't leave.

Keep in mind liberals own businesses too. Now with that said, I would be happy to pay up to 50% marginal rate if we had single payer health care. I have 22 employees and I currently pay 100% of their health insurance (and all other benefits too). That runs me about 150k per year. I also pay 2.5-3x minumum wage even though my employees don't have college degrees and are trained at my expense.

If I had to pay at a marginal rate higher than 50% (assuming that rate would kick in around a million or so) I'd simply be busting my ass to feed the US world police DOD. NO THANKS.

[djean111]

16. You DO know that an entire income is not taxed at that rate, right? Just income over a certain

amount. Some people are either confused or disingenuous about that. No one pays 90% of their entire income. No one. And the rich have all kinds of shelters and loopholes they use to avoid paying much of anything.

[MaggieD]

37. I can't imagine there is a business owner alive...

...that doesn't understand the concept of marginal tax rates. Can you? So I assume your post is not serious.

[DFW]

9. Making blanket statements damages an otherwise valid argument

"The 1 percent, that is people who make almost $400,000 a year, paid only 23.5 percent in taxes in 2011"

Maybe if you have certain kinds of income, you can get away with that. I have friends back in Texas that are paid close to that. It's all earned in salary and taxed at the max rate. With a few things that get tacked on locally, they are over 40%.

My younger daughter landed a nice job here in Germany with a British law firm that pays her €130,000 a year, of which half goes for taxes. She wanted to work in New York City, but couldn't find a job there in her field. But if she had, with all the state and city taxes, she would have been close to 50% also. Now a net €65,000 a year is no small potatoes for a single, healthy 29 year old woman, but Frankfurt is an expensive city to live in, and she does not live a life of garish luxury.

Maybe if you have income other than salary you can get away with 23.5%, but if your income is straight salary on a W-2, you have no room to wiggle, and unless you live in a tent for the rest of the year, you do not go staying in hotel rooms that cost $10,000 a night.

We don't need squads of Nazi-style "Enteignung" enforcers, running around replacing private corruption with state corruption. Look at what results when that is carried out: Romania under Ceauşecu. That country is still a mess. All we need is an equitable tax system, not written for and by those who profit most from its loopholes. Enacting confiscatory laws and sending out jubilant, all-powerful terror squads of confiscation police will only hit those who are most stationary and vulnerable (i.e. middle class shops and businesses). That is what exists today in France and Belgium--currently two of Western Europe's worst economies, and not by coincidence. I met one guy in Belgium who got a routine government audit, and the head government guy said, "OK, let's see where you're cheating here." The guy in the shop said, "what makes you think I'm cheating?" The government auditor said, "under our laws, you'd have gone under years ago if you didn't cheat. Legitimate businesses can't survive here unless they do." At least we're not there yet.

But we need to reform our laws carefully. Extremes mean either the status quo or flight from our shores. Neither is an acceptable solution. Those who get away with paying 23.5% on $400,000 income need to get their loopholes plugged without feeling they need to cheat or leave because the guy next door STILL IS getting away with 23.5%. Manage that, and there will be no need to speak of 90% or even 75%. The moment someone gets more than half his or her income taken away by a government, chances are, they'll think, "who am I doing this for anyway?"

The trick is to enact tax laws that convince big earners that it's still better to give up more of what they are keeping than it is to cheat or flee altogether. THAT is what I'd like to hear out of Washington. It might require some creative thinking, but do we have some candlepower in our Congressional reps or don't we? I do not presume to ask this of Louie Gohmert. I do think that people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are capable of this, but they must put it in terms so that they can preach it to the nation, not just the choir.

[Lucky Luciano]

14. Nice post!!

[adirondacker]

25. Thanks for your input and valid points DFW

"Maybe if you have certain kinds of income, you can get away with that."

Perhaps she could have included "Federal income tax" and quoted CNN Verbatim;

"The effective tax rate of the top 1% was 23.5%: The average tax rate paid by these high-income households was 23.5% -- which represents the percent of their income they paid in federal income taxes.

That's below the 27.6% they paid in 2001 -- a high point for the decade that followed."

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/

I think of Greece when it comes to 1% pillage and flight. Austerity on steroids for the rest.

[Enthusiast]

26. Who is it that advocates all-powerful terror squads of confiscation police?

Romania under Ceauşecu? That's a sound argument.

Your argument sounds precisely like that of wealthy Republicans I know. Precisely.

Any suggestion of increasing taxes on the wealthy is met with all sorts of crazy claims like the threat of all-powerful terror squads of confiscation police. Who said anything about squads of Nazi-style "Enteignung" enforcers?

No one wants to enact laws that damage middle class shops and businesses. But Republicans always make the claim that destroying business is the objective of Democrats that advocate tax increases on the wealthy.

The fact that media is jam packed full of these right wing arguments is the very reason many corporations now pay zero in taxes and Mitt Romney is embarrassed to allow his tax obligations be examined by the voting public.

[DFW]

32. The confiscation squads I was talking about are in France and Belgium

Not the USA. I have seen them, and talked to a LOT of shopkeepers that have suffered under them. So have my neighbors here in Düsseldorf that visit Antwerpen often. I am in Paris and Brussels once a week for work, and I speak both French and Flemish. I am not getting this from right wing media. I am also occasionally in Romania, and see the economic devastation left by Ceauşecu, whose blind ego was the only difference between being the firing squad that he got and retirement of extreme luxury in Paraguay somewhere. Opening his eyes to the situation plus week of preparation would have gotten him door number two instead.

If my argument sounds like that of a bunch of wealthy Republicans to you, well, I can't help that. You obviously know more of them than I do. I try not to travel in circles where there are wealthy Republicans, and usually succeed. The ones in Texas are a little too odious for my taste, and here in Europe, there "ain't no such animal," at least not the kind you apparently hang with.

By the way, the reason the media back Stateside is jam-packed with right wing arguments is because the right wing owns the media. You don't need to be a Greek philosopher to follow the logic on that one. Buy the media and tell it to say what you want said. All you need is money, and they have more of it than we do. All we have is votes. We use them, their money loses. We sit home and whine, their money wins. No need for a PhD for that one, either.

[MaggieD]

44. Exactly - great post!

And by the way, I never get all those big tax breaks I hear about all the time. I can't afford to offshore revenue. I need it to pay workers here.

[archaic56]

27. was sad now depressed

Humans kinds inhumanity to humans will not be discussed till folks who have been impoverished by polices of the one percent are confronted, listened to and respected.
Due to greed..someone elses) I lost my life as have million so others..

All I know for certain is our country would just rather we die (the disabled) and not hear what we have to say. That is cool. It's not my karma..

good luck

[adirondacker]

54. !

I didn't post the article to depress anyone, but to reinforce what many of us already know through the torturous times we are going through. Glad you realize that you're not alone.

[archaic56]

55. none of us are alone

Thanks for your reply. Of course your intention was not to depress. Just grown a wee bit cynical as the years pass. For well over 23 years , speaking truth to power, it's been a comfort and a burden to be two to five years ahead of the herd in discerning how we have been manipulated by media working at the behest of the rich. The template for the destruction of America was the same one used on Indigenous peoples by corporate interests for centuries. Being a student of history doesn't give me much hope for humankind.
OF course we are not alone, none of us are. WE simply choose to believe in this rancid self absorbed behavior the corporate world has sold us and forget we are human beings, not human doings.WE forget there is only one race, the human race. This machine has a sting in the tail which rivals the internal combustion engines effects. Wonder if folks will figure it out before it's too late.

Becoming disabled and poor was the best thing that ever happened to me. I was essentially a herd animal making a living before that event. It's been a huge blessing to shed that illusion for the education of stark reality. Makes you grateful for what you do have and humble. It's also helped me to understand the lives of my ancestors. The best part was to find out the game as it was played was rigged and worthless to participate in. Very freeing all in all.

[The Stranger]

56. Except that these imbeciles aren't the "1%." In fact, they're nowhere close.

But they are the proles. They think they may become the 1%, or they serve the 1%.

Some may realize, some may not, but they are managers for the 1%.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, adirondacker.