Posts Tagged ‘class warfare’


The purpose of this and the next Blog is to describe an economic portrait of the Middle-Class in America, and the growing middle-class worldwide. Most of the emphasis will be on the middle-class right here in America. Part I defines the middle-class, and Part II will describe the middle-class in relation to economics and economic principles.

If there is a theme running through both Part I and Part II it is that the middle-class, particularly in America, is very privileged and economically very well off. A secondary, but no less important theme, is that the middle class with its Robin Hood Politics, is totally unjustified in discriminating against others from other social classes. After all, rich people, poor people, and middle class people all want the same things in life. They all have their personal dreams and desires.

Related to this topic is an interesting observation, that is, whether we talk about “crime in the streets” (A predominately poor and working class phenomena), or “crime in the suites” (a predominately upper-class phenomena) the middle-class have their own form of crime (subtle perhaps, but crime nonetheless). That crime is differential and progressive taxation, i.e., Robin Hood Politics. Property crimes have as their purpose the taking of things that don’t belong to someone. Life is about the choices we all make. Sometimes people who make poor choices early in life still nevertheless want others to pay for their mistakes. Today, there is a new twist to this phenomena.  Rather than politicians following good, solid economic principles in a free market economy, they largely abandon or ignore them in deference to the whims of middle-class voters and political party ideology.

Therefore, it is important to explore what economics is all about and how it ties into the observation that social distribution of wealth is patently unfair to everyone who believes it is the individual who is responsible for his own life, and all the decisions one makes. The notion of re-distributing the wealth through differential taxation of people in higher income groups is a short-term ineffective fix that won’t alter the fact that lower income and middle-class people cannot acquire the things they want unless by stealing from others through the tyranny of the majority. How can they best get the things they want? Well, economic prosperity should be the goal of our society. We shouldn’t try to eat the rich since they, particularly among entrepreneurs, make it possible to increase more prosperity, including increased prosperity of the middle-class. The best way for society to work toward abundance and greater prosperity for everyone—is to realize that it is wealth creation and prosperity in a free market economy that really matters and, by the way, the only thing that matters if people want to get the scarce resources they don’t currently possess. For the middle-class who engages in “Robin Hood Politics,” all that does ultimately, is to shoot themselves in the foot. Robin Hood Politics is a clumsy and incompetent way to achieve the goal of middle-class economic prosperity.


Where do you think all the vast amount of money for charity and helping the less fortunate comes from in this society? Who do you think gives more money to charities in the first place—Democrats or Republicans?

America is unparalleled in economic prosperity and the 20th century proved that. It is economic prosperity that makes charitable contributions possible at all. We even try to help others worldwide with support such as in places like Haiti, or Chile. It is our economic prosperity that makes all of that possible. Check out the facts. Republicans give more money to charity in the United States than do Democrats. But, regardless of who gives more, the underlying ability to give at all is based on economic prosperity. We all live in a very rich nation as nations go.  But, before we get ahead of ourselves lets look at the facts. Who is the middle-class? How are they defined? What is the economic reality we all live under and why are economic principles so important to understand? Society needs to comprehend and understand economics.

Burying one’s head in the sand isn’t going to help anyone. It is crystal clear that Robin Hood Politics and government tinkering with the economy is at best counterproductive, and at worse, an affront to the values of individualism, self-reliance, hard work, determination, rational and intelligent thinking, and, above all, taking responsibility for one’s own life.


      Back in August, 2009 I wrote an article on the dynamics of class warfare from a political independent’s point of view. I considered it then, as I do now, class warfare to be the last bastion of discrimination in America. Our tax laws reflect that, and our politics reflect the underlying discriminatory beliefs about people with differing amounts of income and wealth. I’ve also previously written in this Blog about upper class greed in an article titled, “Greed is Their Creed,” where I discussed the Barney Madoffs of the world, and other white-collar offenders at the top of the social ladder.

Because the middle class in America dominate as a majority, one of the often unexpressed, yet socially blatant attitudes of this group is also, unfortunately—greed, and a willingness to engage in “Robin Hood Politics” by discriminating against people from other social classes or social conditions.

For example, middle class people will get angry about the demographics of changing neighborhoods, or halfway houses for drug offenders that are placed in their neighborhoods. Yet they barely raise an eyebrow when some politician struts populism to the extent and willingness to disproportionately tax the rich (everybody who makes over $250,000) or even just higher income upper middle class individuals. Most politicians (almost universally democrats but a minority of republicans) who create our laws, buy into this discriminatory ethos from the middle class. Why? The reason is that the middle class is their base for currying favor among society’s largest group of voters. All that matters to politicians is their getting elected or re-elected.

The thrust of my article last August looked at data and the dynamics of social class from primarily a sociological and psychological type of logical analysis. This article will be to support my earlier article. But, emphasis will be instead on key economic principles, economic insights, and economic data on income distribution.

Economics is sometimes called the ‘dismal social science’ because its laws and principles give special treatment or quarry to no one. It doesn’t take sides; it simply tries to explain economic principles with economic data. Thus, it is an objective way to view the world.


The American middle class is an ambiguously defined social class in the United States.  While the concept remains largely ambiguous in popular opinion and common language use,  contemporary sociologists have put forward several, more or less congruent, theories on the American middle class. Depending on class model used, the middle class may constitute anywhere from 25% to 66% of households.

One of first major studies of White Collar: The American Middle Classes, was made by sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1951. Later sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert of Hamilton College commonly divided the middle class into two sub-groups. Constituting roughly 15% to 20% of households is the upper or professional middle class consisting of highly educated, salaried professionals and managers.

Constituting roughly one third (33%) of households is the lower middle class consisting mostly of semi-professionals, skilled craftsmen and lower level management.  Middle class persons commonly have a comfortable standard of living, significant economic security, considerable work autonomy and rely on their expertise to sustain themselves.

Everyone wants to believe they are middle class…But this eagerness…has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord and used to defend/attack/describe everything. The Drum Major Institute places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. Ah yes, there’s a group of people bound to run into each other while house-hunting.—Dante Chinni

Members of the middle class belong to diverse groups which overlap with each other. Overall, middle class persons, especially upper middle class individuals, are characterized by conceptualizing, creating and consulting. Thus, college education is one of the main indicators of middle class status.

Largely attributed to the nature of middle class occupations, middle class values tend to emphasize independence, adherence to intrinsic standards, valuing innovation and respecting non-conformity.  Politically more active than other demographics, college educated middle class professionals are split.  Income varies considerably from near the national median to well in excess of $100,000.

Household income figures, however, do not always reflect class status and standard of living, as they are largely influenced by the number of income earners and fail to recognize household size. It is therefore possible for a large, dual-earner, lower middle class household to out-earn a small, one-earner, upper middle class household.  The middle classes are very influential, as they encompass the majority of voters, writers, teachers, journalists, and editors. Most societal trends in the US originate within the middle classes.


In February 2009, the Economist magazine announced that over half the world’s population now belongs to the middle class, as a result of rapid growth in emerging countries. It characterized the middle class as having a reasonable amount of discretionary income, so that they do not live from hand to mouth as the poor do, and defined it as beginning at the point where people have roughly a third of their income left for discretionary spending after paying for basic food and shelter. This allows people to buy consumer goods, improve their health care, and provide for their children’s education. Most of the emerging middle class consists of people who are middle-class by the standards of the developing world but not the rich one, since their money incomes do not match developed country levels, but the percentage of it which is discretionary does. By this definition, the number of middle class people in Asia exceeded that in the West sometime around 2007 or 2008.

The Economist article pointed out that in many emerging countries the middle class has not grown incrementally, but explosively. The rapid growth results from the fact that the majority of the people fall into the middle of a right-skewed bell-shaped curve, and when the peak of the population curve crosses the threshold into the middle class, the number of people in the middle class grows enormously.

In addition, when the curve crosses the threshold, economic forces cause the bulge to become taller as incomes at that level grow faster than incomes in other ranges. The point at which the poor start entering the middle class by the millions is the time when poor countries get the maximum benefit from cheap labour through international trade, before they price themselves out of world markets for cheap goods. It is also a period of rapid urbanization, when subsistence farmers abandon marginal farms to work in factories, resulting in a several-fold increase in their economic productivity before their wages catch up to international levels. That stage was reached in China some time between 1990 and 2005, when the middle class grew from 15% to 62% of the population, and is just being reached in India now.

The Economist predicted that surge across the poverty line should continue for a couple of decades and the global middle class will grow enormously between now and 2030.


In 1950 an important sociology book came out called—The Lonely Crowd. In it was a significant sociological analysis written by David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney. It is considered — along with White Collar: The American Middle Classes, written by Riesman’s friend and colleague C. Wright Mills — to be a landmark study of American character.

Riesman, et al. identified and analyzed three main cultural types: tradition-directed, inner-directed, and outer-directed. They traceD the evolution of society from a tradition-directed culture — one that moved in a direction defined by preceding generations. Tradition-directed social types obeyed rules established a long time in the past, and rarely succeeded in modern society, with its dynamic changes.

This earliest social type was succeeded by people who were inner-directed. They discovered the potential within themselves to live and act not according to established norms, but based on what they discovered using their own inner gyroscope. Inner-directed people live as adults what they learned in childhood, and tend to be confident, sometimes rigid.

After the Industrial Revolution in America had succeeded in developing a middle-class state, institutions that had flourished within the tradition-directed and the inner-directed social framework became secondary to daily life. Instead of living according to traditions, or conforming to the values of organized religion, the family, or societal codes, the new middle class gradually adopted a malleability in the way people lived with each other. The increasing ability to consume goods and afford material abundance was accompanied by a shift away from tradition or inner-directedness. How to define one’s self became a function of the way others lived.

Gradually an outer-direction took hold, that is, the social forces of how others were living -what they consumed, what they did with their time, what their views were toward politics, work, play, and so on. Riesman and his researchers found that other-directed people were flexible and willing to accommodate others to gain approval. Because large organizations preferred this type of personality, it became indispensable to the institutions that thrived with the growth of industry in America.

As Riesman wrote, “The other-directed person wants to be loved rather than esteemed”, not necessarily to control others but to relate to them. Those who are other-directed need assurance that they are emotionally in tune with others.

By the 1940s, the other-directed character was beginning to dominate society. Today the triumph of this type of social personality is complete. If one applies the outer-direction criteria to everyday actors as portrayed in modern culture, for example, Death of a Salesman or How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, or the classic How to Win Friends and Influence People, the other-directed person is easy to identify.

This defined the middle class that no longer had the material need to cling to past life standards to form a cohesive society. But since the other-directed could only identify themselves through references to others in their communities (and what they earned, owned, consumed, believed in) they inherently were restricted in their ability to know themselves.

Riesman’s book argues that although other-directed individuals are crucial for the smooth functioning of the modern organization, the value of autonomy is compromised. The Lonely Crowd also argues that society dominated by the other-directed faces profound deficiencies in leadership, individual self-knowledge, and human potential.

Riesman and his co-authors (Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney) did not come up with the title; the publisher did.

Read Full Post »

Class Warfare in America From a Political Independent’s Point of View

[Emphasis on Taxation, the Economy, and Our staggering National Debt]



         One of the perks of being a blogger is the reward that comes from expressing one’s opinion. Since this Blog is political in nature, it’s best if I’m up front regarding my politics. I’m one of those moderate independents who supports a very strong military and Homeland Security. Yet, when it comes to social issues, I am liberal, if not ultra-liberal.

      When I was young I was very liberal, but as I aged I became more conservative in my viewpoint. Today, as a Medicare recipient and over the age of 66, I much prefer the comfort of independent middle road politics, refraining from the temptation to be a political ideologue of the left or right. I prefer to approach every problem or social issue in an intellectual fashion with reason and logic.

       Nevertheless, none of us can escape the fact that values and value judgments penetrate our world view, and influence how we think about most everything. In my life, social class is one of those things. So, I’m going to take a stab at this topic of class warfare with the understanding on the part of the reader, that my politics are somewhat complex, and can shift between liberal and conservative viewpoints quite easily.

       For me, it all starts with an assessment of class warfare and discrimination.


      One of the last bastions of discrimination in America is class warfare. Class warfare pits the lower classes (poverty level, working class, lower middle-class) against the upper classes (upper middle-class, the rich, and the super rich). Republicans tend to look out for the financial interests of the upper classes, while the Democrats like to look out for the interests of the lower classes. However, both political parties only appear to pay lip service to the fact that prejudice and discrimination based on income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige (the elements of social class) is a fact of life in America. It is never discussed openly and honestly by politicians of either party. Such differences between the social classes in America reflect many variables, not the least of which is psychological attitudes.

      Psychological attitudes have much to do with class dynamics. Specifically, Jealousy among the lower classes has always been there as reflected in the historical gap between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots (The French Revolution, labor unions and management  in America, and dislocation and social uprooting reflected in the 1940 movie, The Grapes of Wrath).

      Among the upper-classes however, jealousy doesn’t loom, but the desire to maintain “social distance” does (elite Ivy League prep schools, upper-middle class neighborhoods that now have locked entry gates and walls to keep people out, elitist social clubs, and a culture of affluence and privilege among the upper-crust). Today, democracy does little to address these types of behavior. Even among other political systems (communism, socialism, dictatorships of all kinds) caste and class still exist, as does privilege and differential affluence among the few who control the many.

      Such attitudes in society are also reflected in our elected officials. Because of the underlying conflicting tensions of social class in America, Congress often acts to control the rich and the poor depending upon whose political party is in charge.  However, social class in this country has a rather fluid nature to it; that is, we are not locked into a caste system. As such, individuals in America can move up within a class, and can transcend their position by moving into higher classes as their personal situation allows. Sometimes, the harsh reality of life dictates that people are forced to move down into a lower class, as when individuals lose jobs and their homes during a severe recession (sound familiar).

      Since most people of different social classes often co-mingle with members of other social classes, my suspicion is that day-to-day class warfare is largely unspoken behavior, which seldom manifests itself as overt class hatred. Instead, Americans prefer to work through political parties to achieve their economic standing or improve their lot in life. Others prefer to exercise their own drive to get ahead, emphasizing hard work, ambition, setting goals, perseverance, and their own efforts—making excuses to no one.

      There are others, unfortunately, where what it takes to get ahead appears to be beyond their reach. Factors involving nature, nurture, attitude, and accidental happenstance often conspire at times to create the social and economic conditions whereby success is unattainable, unavailable, or unreachable, even in a democratic society.

      Nevertheless, as a way to pay for the vast increasing needs of society, not long after we entered the 20th Century, the Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Its initial purpose was to protect the solvency of the country—a noble goal. However, one of the unintended consequences of this amendment was to, “Take from Peter to pay Paul.” In essence a progressive income tax was created that disproportionately penalized the rich and wealthy, despite the fact that each person affected had only one vote, and didn’t disproportionately benefit from their sacrifice in loss of income. In modern times society has came up with an amusing name for this system—a redistribution of wealth.


      This disparity between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots” boils over whereby poor, lower and working class, and lower-middle class people, develop hard feelings regarding those in better economic situations, regardless of the wealthy contributing more through taxation of their income.  Historically, class and caste have been with cultures worldwide for thousands of years. American society long before the 16th Amendment had class tensions that pitted rich against the poor and vice versa. But with passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, class tensions in America did nothing but become more accentuated. 

      Translated into the colloquialism of common informal language, when class politics is promoted by politicians with legislation, creating huge spending budgets and debt, appropriations, and concomitant raising of taxes to pay for them, the target of such discrimination is always the upper-middle class, the rich and the super-rich. This type of discrimination is known as, “Robin Hood Politics,” i.e., steal from the rich and give to the poor. Or, some prefer to euphemistically call Robin Hood Politics a “Redistribution of wealth.”

      In a free democratic society all anyone has at the ballot box is the power of one vote. And, no one is ever entitled to more than one vote. My last Blog was, “Greed is Their Creed.” In it I described White-Collar Crime and White-Collar criminals in America. Those crimes were individual acts committed within primarily organizational settings on Wall Street, in corporations, and in businesses large and small. I reported that “Crime in the Suites” is our most serious of criminal activity far exceeding the harm done by “Crime in the Streets.” 

      Sociologists are always looking to explain group behavior as opposed to the behavior of individuals. While the “white-collar crime Blog” focused on individual as well as group behavior, this Blog takes a look-see at group behavior only. This Blog looks at class warfare within the context of issues such as federal income taxation, the economy, and our staggering national debt. This time I am not looking at greed at the top of the socio-economic ladder, but greed, institutionalized greed, that comes with the support of the masses.

      Many people have a very limited concept of what “theft” is. When someone steals goods out of your garage, it is individual theft. When businesses and corporations engage in “price gouging” that is theft perpetrated by businesses, occupational groups or white-collar criminals. When theft becomes institutionalized, such as passage of the 16th Amendment, it became theft by social class. Basically, it is institutionalized greed among the masses. What makes this form of theft so beguiling, and noxious at the same time, is that it comes with the U.S. government’s seal of approval.

     Since passage of the 16th Amendment, there has been what has been called a “progressive income tax.” This form of taxation blatantly discriminates by stealing the proceeds from the livelihood of several million Americans every year. This form of class discrimination permeates the entire country and culture. It punishes business success and people who are monetarily successful, whatever their line of work. Discrimination against a very high-end group of wage-earners, businessmen, entrepreneurs, corporation executives, along with corporate and business taxation, is not just discriminatory, but also counter-productive to working class and middle-class citizens. Money that could be used for job creation with re-investment of corporate profits is flittered away paying taxes instead. Unless you’re a small business owner, or an entrepreneur, 99.9% of all people who work in America work in some kind of organization. We don’t create our own jobs. So why then does society want to shoot itself in the foot by weakening businesses and organizations that are responsible for job creation and hiring most people in this country?

     The result of punishing business organizations and the wealthy is that it results in a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since one result of an improving GDP is increases in wages, hurting businesses’ ability to contribute to the GDP ultimately hurts both job creation and wages. People get laid off when businesses fail or are reduced in scope.

     There are those who will argue that “trickle-down economics” doesn’t work. This is countered by many economists who say that it does if those in the job market properly prepare for more advanced, technologically oriented 21st Century types of jobs. This is a macro-level and economic way to look at the problem of class warfare and discrimination. Now, look at class warfare from a psychological way of thinking. Psychologically, think about it this way.

      Suppose your neighbor down the street makes twice as much income as you do. What’s more he or she graduated from college that included a subsequent graduate or professional degree. Your neighbor over the years also wisely invested money (wasn’t just a consumption addict, a credit card victim, or indiscriminately lived beyond his means) and saved his money for a rainy day. Your neighbor is prudent, and, if truth be known, has a much higher IQ than you. Tell me please! By what stretch of your imagination can your rationalize that you deserve a redistribution of his wealth, by stealing through taxes from your neighbor, and putting his hard earned money into benefiting you? 

      Discrimination that taxes the most talented and productive of citizens among us corrupts the idea of equality before the law, and speaks to the lack of protection afforded all citizens under the 14th Amendment, i.e., equal protection clauses. There are historical reasons for this worth exploring, but will not be covered here. There is also an additional issue related to taxation, and that is taxation of  higher-valued property or real estate, and commodoties and products of all kinds produced in this country. Is there a logical reason why higher-valued products are taxed at a higher rates? Or, is it simply an arbitrary smokescreen for collecting additional revenues for government programs?  What is the logical connection between our federal income tax laws, local property tax laws, corporate taxes, gift and estate taxes, excise taxes, consumption or use taxes and their incessant drain on the resources of business or the public? Questions of value and taxation can’t be covered here. Suffice it to say, another blogger needs to step forward and tackle this issue.

     In essence, if you make more money, you pay more in taxes. If you produce higher quality products, no matter how many new jobs are created, or old jobs protected, you pay more taxes. But why does this occur?  On the one hand we want the GDP to grow and increase, yet, on the other hand, we counter incentives to grow and expand the GDP by a progressive tax burden for the upper 60% of our tax-paying individuals and businesses?

      If we’re all equal under the law, then why do some individuals pay most of tax revenues in this country while others pay extremely little or, in some cases, no taxes at all. Is it that all of us are equal, but that some of us are “more equal than others”? Is it all a fraud to suggest that equality applies only to race or gender, but when it comes to social class in America—equality doesn’t matter?

      In theory, under the constitution, everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution does not guarantee that everyone will be successful, only the right to pursue happiness.  So where in the United States Constitution does it say that if someone is actually successful (as measured by wealth) that the individual must turn over a larger amount of his money (with no additional benefits for his sacrifice) in terms of a forced redistribution of wealth; I simply can’t find that particular passage in the United States Constitution.


  For purposes of this discussion, I want to discuss Robin Hood politics in relation to Federal Income Taxes and the escalating crisis in the economy.

      Since 1913 the United States government has grown and grown and grown. And the amount of debt, now in 2009, is in the trillions—and growing even more. It now appears that the incessant tax and spend policies of a government gone amuck, largely favored by the Democratic Party, is bringing a financial collapse that is going to bite everybody, poor, working-class, middle-class, and wealthy alike, in the ass.

       As national debt increases from borrowing to pay bills, the value of the dollar declines. When the value of the dollar declines so does the value and growth potential of our GDP. When the GDP declines the government needs to obtain more tax revenues in order to pay the bills. Since government tax and spend never declines, the national debt, in turn, increases. It is a nasty vicious cycle of irresponsible government management of the United States federal budget.

     Economic cycles are supposed to be the calculus by which the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contracts or expands, depending upon the predictable ups-and-down of a Capitalist market economy. But, because of the excesses of personal greed, Wall Street gone amuck, and the unlimited offering of credit to just about anyone in this country, the rich alone cannot bail out society of financial trouble anymore.


     In this Blog I want to focus on answering just three questions: (1) What is social class in America? (2) What is the discriminatory nature of our federal income tax system? And, (3) Does the current economic crisis and federal budget contribute to class warfare?


      Social class in the United States is based on three primary factors: personal income, educational attainment, and occupational prestige. While it is possible to create dozens of social classes within the confines of American society, most Americans employ a six or five class system. The most commonly applied class concepts used in regards to contemporary American society are:

 Upper class; Those with great influence, wealth and prestige. Members of this group tend to act as the grand-conceptualizers and have tremendous influence of the nation’s institutions. This class makes up about 1% of the population and owns about a third of private wealth.

  • Upper middle class; The upper middle class consists of white collar professionals with advanced post-secondary educational degrees and comfortable personal incomes. Upper middle class professionals have large amounts of autonomy in the workplace and therefore enjoy high job satisfaction. In terms of income and considering the 15% figure used by Thompson, Hickey and Gilber, upper middle class professionals earn roughly $62,500 or more and tend to reside in households with six figure incomes.
  • (Lower) middle class; Semi-professionals, non-retail salespeople, and craftsmen who may have some college education. Out-sourcing tends to be a prominent problem among those in this class who often suffer from a lack of job security. Households in this class may need two income earners to make ends meet and therefore may have household incomes rivaling the personal incomes of upper middle class professionals such as attorneys.
  • Working class; According to some experts such as Michael Zweig, this class may constitute the majority of Americans and include those otherwise referred to as lower middle. It includes blue as well as white collar workers who have relatively low personal incomes and lack college degrees with many being among the 45% of Americans who have never attended college.
  • Lower class; This class includes the poor, alienated and marginalized members of society. While most individuals in this class work, it is common for them to drift in and out of poverty.


     In April of 2010 all of us are going to pay our federal and state income taxes, however collected and adjusted with various tax credits and tax deductions. The first evidence of discrimination I present here is from the IRS itself. They have published what will occur with tax rates as they apply to 2009. Below are the published tax rates. See what you think. Are they discriminatory based on income, or not? If you think not then you better have more than class-oriented “value judgments” to defend your position.

 I’m going to show rates for just married filing jointly:

Tax Rate                 2009 Taxable Income

           10%                       Not over $16,700

           15%                        $16,700 – 67,900

           25%                         $67,900 – 137, 050

           28%                         $137,050 – 208, 850

            33%                         $208,850 – 372,950

            35%                         Income over $372,950

      The above rates cited represent official federal income tax rate brackets, locked in for 2009. As one can see the above rates clearly show the “smoking gun” of discrimination.

     These tax brackets shown address one’s categorical tax liability. But the brackets don’t tell one the final picture, e.g., how much tax is paid to the federal government by individual income level among all earners. Below are data from the year 2003 that addresses that question.

Who Really Pays OUR Federal Income Taxes?

      The numbers below are from a Congressional Budget Office Report , but the same numbers are buried in the IRS web site as well.

     For 2003, the estimated share of total individual income taxes paid by:

Wealthiest 1%: 33.6%
Wealthiest 5%: 55.1%
Wealthiest 10%: 67.9%
Wealthiest 20%: 83.0%
Wealthiest 40%: 97.8%
Wealthiest 60%: 103.0%

     The way to read this is that the wealthiest 10% of taxpayers pay 67.9% of the country’s individual income taxes (or that the top 5% in income pay more than half of all income taxes). And yes, that 103% is not a typo – the bottom 40% in income, as a group, pay negative personal income taxes (because of the EITC).


     The obvious answer is yes. But a lot really depends on the historical, as well as the current, financial health of the United States government. Using the analogy of a hospital patient, the government didn’t take care of its health practices (build a surplus and control spending) during its lifetime—and now it’s on “Life Supports,” and not expected to recover.

     My late mother had that proverbial quintessential expression “mad money” women often talk about; and one of the maxims I grew up with, as did my parents, was to “save money for a rainy day.” What the hell happened? Where is our money for a rainy day at the federal level now? Well, it’s nowhere to be found. There is no big savings account.

     An interesting question arises: If the rich and the wealthy pay the lion’s share of federal income taxes, then why now are higher tax bracketed individuals unable to bail us out of an 11.3 trillion national debt, and balance the federal budget every year?  Well, before I answer that charming question, let’s discuss a few facts. First off, what is the current economic crisis all about?

The Current Economic Crisis

     The United States is experiencing one of the most severe economic recessions since the end of the Great Depression. As a result, major family dislocation and psychological uncertainty has come about as a result of escalating unemployment in both the public and private sectors. Simply put, the economy really sucks.

      Many inter-related factors are responsible for this, including: serious problems in the housing, commercial real estate and credit markets, the decline of manufacturing in America, the global meltdown and problems of international currencies, a huge decline and loss of equity and retirement investments (stock and portfolio values, and 401Ks) on Wall Street and elsewhere during the economic decline. Practically everyone in America is impacted by the recession.

       In addition, if things weren’t bad enough, in 2008 there was the near collapse of major banks and insurance giant AIG. There has also been a huge decline, and in some cases bankruptcy, of large automobile companies like Chrysler and General Motors. Also, no longer flying under the radar making economic conditions even worse—is America’s on-going battle with white-collar crime and criminals.

      It then again begs the question: Why is there any redistribution of wealth if individuals are free under the U.S. Constitution to pursue their own form(s) of happiness? The answer is—the ballot box is controlled by the poor, working class, and middle-class in America. Why? The reason is they form a majority of citizens. One vote doesn’t affect either legislation or fiscal policy in America—but collective voting blocks and Interest Groups do.

      That is, those making over $250,000 a year, and greater amounts, are a minority in America. Politics is controlled by the tyranny of the majority. The irony of this is not lost on the politics of equality (or lack there of) in America. American citizens have, unfortunately, turned a blind eye to this insidious form of discrimination, preferring to invent rationalizations and value judgments to defend discrimination rather than believe in the true equality of the individual under our democratic form of government.

The Federal Budget

     The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009. 

2009 Budget of the United States federal government

Submitted by

George W. Bush      

Submitted to

110th Congress      

Total Revenue

$2.7 trillion (estimated)      

Total Expenditures

$3.1 trillion (estimated)      


$611 billion (estimated)      


$11.3 trillion (estimated)      


     In the current 2009 federal budget there is a deficet of $611 billion. That is the current shortfall between what are estimated expenditures (3.1 trillion) and the total estimated revenues generated to cover it (2.7 trillion). Added to this is an 11.3 trillion national debt accrued from previous administrations, both democrat and republican. And none of these figures relate to the current presidency of Barack Obama, where stimulus programs, continuation of wars on two fronts, and new programs such as health care reform have been proposed along with more discriminatory taxes for the rich and the middle classes.

     Currently, revenues for our federal budget come from the following sources, called receipts:

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2009 are 2.7 trillion (+7.1%).



     There are approximately 138,000,000 taxpayers in the United States. If every taxpayer paid an equal amount of the burden from federal income taxes the 1.21 trillion raised by individual income tax would be 1.21 trillion / 138,000,000 taxpayers. Each taxpayer would pay under this equality model approximately $8,800 annually. In other words the chances are good, all other factors being equal, that the same amount of federal income taxes could be raised without ANY tax brackets in deference to a “everyone pays the same” model of tax collection.

     To answer the earlier question on getting bailed out of a financial mess or calamity, here is your answer. If the rich were taxed at 100%, taking all they have would not solve the current economic crisis. There are simply not enough rich people to make up the money needed to fix the federal budget each year, and reduce the national debt.


     It has always been clear that the government needs to increase revenues or cut spending, or both. There are two types of spending done in Washington: (1) Mandatory Spending, and (2) Discretionary Spending. Added to this is the cost of special appropriations such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      As one can see below mandatory spending includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Unemployment/Welfare and other mandatory spending, and $260 billion in interest on the National Debt.

     Mandatory spending totals 1.89 trillion. In the current budget, if all mandatory spending is covered (2.7 trillion minus 1.89 trillion) it would leave a residual of 810 billion spread across discretinary spending categories. If we add the cost of the United States Department of Defense ($515.4 billion) and the war on Terror (145.2 billion) we have a risidual of (810 billion – 515.4 billion – $145.2 billion) leaving 149.4 billion for social programs and running the operational aspects of the government. The shortfall in discretionary spending in the 2009 federal budget would be  $390.0 billion – 149.4 billion, or 240.6 billion and this does not include the appropriations for the two wars.

     If the U.S. could raise in the receipt category an additional 240.6 billion a year (plus a reasonable % increase each subsequent year) it just might balance it’s annual federal budget. The road to financial solvency takes thinking (forget the cliché) outside the box. However, beyond balacing the federal budget each year three problems remain. These problems include: (1) handling the recession effectively, (2) eliminating, in 5 years, the entire national debt, and (3) building large surpluses for future generations and the handling of emergencies like a Hurricane Katrina.

      I personally would like to see an immediate 20% reduction in the budget of all federal agencies across the board. The reality is not all agencies would reduce their services or activities by 20% if their budget were reduced by that amount. Some middle-managers and directors in government are the best people to look inside their organizations and reduce costs without service suffering in any way. Other managers may have a harder time, even with the best of intentions. But all will have to learn to adjust, otherwise they can be replaced by top management.

      On the other side of the coin is increasing revenues without discriminating against anyone, anymore. The rich can no longer bail the country out of financial chaos. Much creative thinking is needed in the years ahead to generate new ideas for revenues. This is highly speculative on my part (and perhaps crazy) but it might be useful to increase federal receipts by creating a federal sales tax or consumption tax of 4%. In the short run this might balance the federal budget. Perhaps the country needs to invest in stockpiling natural gas and selling this form of energy to other countries. What about re-opening the gold mines with a stimulus package whereby the government would, through funding new companies, get a share of the profits. Then sell the gold and use the cash to pay off some of the national debt.  

     Government is good at providing seed money for anything it wants to do, just look at what’s happening with the Obama administraton. If government funded more businesses with a revenue sharing plans to return say, 10-20% of all profits, the money obtained could also be used to pay off the national debt. Some of these ideas may be unusable or in fact crazy. We probably shouldn’t sell any of our natural resources. Plus the environmental havoc it might cause isn’t worth it. However, the point is—the country needs innovative original thinkers to generate the best of new ideas for raising revenues to control our debt. In addition, perhaps we need a constitutional amendment to control spending with limits by tying any % increases or decreases annually to the GDP, or the Consumer Price Index(CPI). 


The President’s budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.


      The evidence is very clear. Class warfare exists and contributes to discriminating against our more well-to-do citizens. There is no simple solution to the problem of paying for the Great Society. The world is changing as we now have a global economy that requires people to re-think about how to get ahead in this life. Old assumptions and Robin Hood politics just won’t cut it anymore. It’s time to come into the 21st Century folks even if you’re kicking and screaming all the way.

      Class warfare needs to be buried as a relic of the past. There are good and decent people in every social class. There are also talented and highly capable people in every social class. But where the abject poor and the working poor are concerned, do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to help them? By any standard I think we do. But I think there are limitations. Forty+ years ago President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty was a good attempt at social engineering, but it never came to fruition. Today, we still have too many people below the poverty line. Since 1913 a forced redistribution of wealth in this country has not achieved the eradication of poverty. Ironically perhaps, the data show that republicans and conservatives give more money to charity each year than do democrats and liberals. Some people I guess just don’t want to put their money where their mouth is.

     There are many reasons why people fail to achieve in this society, but one thing is very certain. Affluence (individual or collective) is achievable in a free-market economy but it takes effort, motivation, and a willingness to overcome the obstacles one confronts in life. It takes courage my friend. Just remember this. It’s okay to be a fiscally conservative republican, or a tax and spend democrat in this society; after all—nobody is perfect!

Read Full Post »