One Percenter Calls For 'Enlightened Self Interest' To Avert Real Class Warfare

Some conservatives complain it's class warfare to harp on income inequality and to say the rich should pay higher taxes. Philadelphia's Dan Berger, an avowed member of the richest 1 percent of Americans, says calling attention to uneven incomes is a step toward averting class warfare.

"The wealthy in this country have the biggest stake because they own the most wealth and property," said Berger, who made his millions as a trial lawyer pursuing antitrust, environmental, and civil and human rights cases. "Since they have the biggest stake, they have the biggest stake in ensuring harmonious political and social relations and conditions in society."

Berger, 64, is a major donor to liberal causes and the Democratic party, which he would like to prevail in its effort to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on millionaires such as himself. To that end, he joined a group called "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength," which is devoted to lobbying for taxes on its own members -- the super rich.

Incomes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans grew faster than for any other income group over the past few decades, according to a recent report from economists at the Congressional Budget Office. From 1979 to 2007, the richest 1 percent saw their after-tax income soar by 275 percent. It grew by 65 percent for the next 19 percent, under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and just 18 percent for the bottom fifth of taxpayers.

It's against this backdrop Congress is wrestling with how to shrink the federal budget deficit, with Republicans opposed to tax increases and Democrats against spending cuts to social programs. The Obama administration has said allowing the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 would raise $866 billion over 10 years. Democrats have also pushed proposals to hike rates solely on those earning more than $1 million per year.

Berger said he sees widening income inequality as a moral wrong, but also something the well-off should worry about for more practical reasons. "In enlightened self interest you would think the wealthy would go along with [reducing economic inequality]," he said. "There are a limited number of countries you can pack up and move to in the event things get totally out of control."

He said the unrest manifested as Occupy Wall Street protests across the country represents the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of what could happen if people really get angry one day. "I do see a link between the Patriotic Millionaires and Occupy Wall Street," Berger said. "They dramatized the issue. I think just dramatizing the issue is a step forward."

 

Comments

[NoBlueDogs]

05:17 PM on 12/13/2011

I own a successful business and I support the 99% for a more practical reason that is related to enlightened self-interest. The more money the working class makes, the more I make. That's true for any real business out there that produces goods and services. You make money, you hire people, they buy your stuff, open their own businesses, have kids who buy stuff, the cycle of symbiosis goes on. When you start paying the locals peanuts and you lock them out of the labor market by hiring foreign labor, that things start to break down and self-interest becomes greed.

[KWiedemer]

10:16 AM on 12/06/2011

Great article...

[KWiedemer]

10:16 AM on 12/06/2011

Great article.

[pdxfatso]

07:30 PM on 12/05/2011

There are super rich people out there. Given this fact, we ought to be glad that among them are people who realize that it is not a stable social configuration and seem to recognize the importance of moving the economic spread to something a little more equitable

[Xcentric News]

04:37 PM on 12/05/2011

wow, this berger guy has his priorities all messed up... money will do that to you I guess. What is it about being amillionaire that turns you into a megalomaniac?
so rich people hold more "stake" in this society than everyone else? REally? and they should determine how society is structured according to their ideals because of this?? O, I get it... must like share holders, THAT's what he means. they are share holders not stake holders because we ARE ALL STAKE HOLDERS.
by his logic, we should allow the costcos and walmarts to determine civil engineering - all roads leading to the mega wall mart - because those corporate execs are billionaires and therefore hold more stake in society.
what is that guy talking about?

[JWerner]

05:09 PM on 12/05/2011

You might be misinterpreting him slightly. A key line is: "Since they have the biggest stake, they have the biggest stake in ensuring harmonious political and social relations and conditions in society." Presumably, what he means by that is that the top percentile has most to benefit from a populace that is happy and prosperous, and shares in the success of the country.

What he seems to be alluding to is the idea that the top percentile or elite of a society should be stewards of the society. Is the idea a little naive? Probably. . .since there will be plenty of those folks using their favorable position at the top to ensure more power and wealth for themselves. But it's better than the narcissistic self-interest that results from unchecked ambition and greed.

[Xcentric News]

08:51 AM on 12/06/2011

so, we are back to feudalism again eh?

[TaiJi2]

06:01 PM on 12/05/2011

This guy is talking about the 1% having the most to LOSE if they don't wise up.

[TBrennan]

10:01 AM on 12/05/2011

"Avert class warfare" ? Really? Where has this guy been for the last 20 years? We've had at least 20 years of class warfare against the middle and they got their azzes kicked.

[floodmfx]

09:35 AM on 12/05/2011

Oh no - I don't want the 1% to suddenly see reality -
I mean, what will I do then with all these torches and pitch-forks that I bought.

[JWerner]

05:10 PM on 12/05/2011

Umm. . .open a stall at a flea market and sell them for cheap? :)

[Erdgeist]

09:14 AM on 12/05/2011

The issue is not "class warfare" but governance. Since the Gilded Age our government has been more or less a plutocracy. Any vestige of a real democratic Republic has been eliminated by the 1%, the plutocrats, especially when it comes to the economy. Free trade agreements (FTAs), for example, are designed exclusively for the benefit of corporations — not U.S. workers. The list goes on, with 8 million jobs being lost between 2007 and 2009 due to Wall Street corruption (the 1%). Little do the fools who represent the 1% fully understand that their wealth came by way of the 99% who, since the 1980s, have been systematically screwed over by the 1%. I say give the 1% no quarter.

[Bradley Scott Roon]

08:49 AM on 12/05/2011

Slim Navarro, the world's richest man (mexico) stated that the US govt spent too much money helping the "investment economy" instead of the "real economy". I've always thought of it as the parasitic economy since Wall Street makes absolutely NO capital improvement in anything, thus is only capable of making paper profits, not true increases in value. I always called it the working economy instead of the real economy because i respect the worker.
Too bad for Cain that he had to quit, but he is a perfect example to guide a small series of observations. The man became wealthy. Cool. He made a business successful. Great. This actually did make jobs. Fine.
Notice that while (no sane person denies) he deserves a substantive reward for his dealings, he does not make pizzas. He doesn't deliver them. Raise the many ingredients and process them into sauces, cheeses, flours, etc.
In other words, he COULD NOT REACH A SIGNIFICANT level of wealth without his workers. No wealthy person could. So the question arises: Why do many of the super wealthy decide that they need even more wealth when they are getting record percentages of corporate income? Why don't those workers who make their wealth possible deserve a decent living wage? They give up (irreplaceable) time to help these people succeed in life and become attacked by those rich people, and this is fair somehow?
No it is literally sociopathic. See the link http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

[NoBlueDogs]

06:03 PM on 12/13/2011

Even on the HuffPo not a lot of people read insight like this. F&F, but if this place was half as smart as it says it is you'd have 4,000 faves right now. Argh.

[tampamurray]

08:43 AM on 12/05/2011

I think most American high-earners wouldn't have a problem with a tax increase IF those surplus revenues went to pay down debt and NOT to paying out more welfare, food stamp, or unemployment benefits. All these programs actually do is assure that the poor stay poor. But we all know that the Govt will use any additional tax income for their social programs, and that debt will continue to skyrocket.

[Chris Cheramie]

11:52 AM on 12/05/2011

I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it didn't go to corporate welfare to companies that can't manage their investments, and the military that if way to big for a "peaceful country".

[tampamurray]

01:19 PM on 12/05/2011

No argument from me about corporations ... clearly they should pay some taxes but it's never gonna happen because both parties are in bed with them. Even if we could curtail some of the corporate tax loopholes, I still wouldn't favor a tax increase on individuals if it's going to go to more welfare programs. I firmly believe in government aid being given to help someone get back on their feet, but for generations it's been used by millions of families as their sole source of income. If you don't believe that, you're just not paying attention. We're not doing American taxpayers any favors with that kind of system and, at the end of the day, we're not doing the welfare recipient any favors either.

[Dennis Tivey]

12:18 PM on 12/05/2011

No, we don't "all know" any such thing. What to use the money for is a political decision. Under Bill Clinton, the debt was being paid down, for example.

Basic survival assistance does not "assure that the poor stay poor." Even if such assistance did create dependency, then your assertion would only make sense if such assistance could be received indefinitely, which it cannot. Clinton put a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits, and unemployment benefits are also time limited.

Government debt did not skyrocket because of programs for the poor, but rather because Reagan and the Bushes increased spending dramatically, primarily on military hardware and needless wars of choice, while cutting taxes instead of paying for the spending. Why? To justify cuts in social spending later on when the deficits piled up. When we had a president who right-sized military spending and put pay-as-you-go into law -- again, Bill Clinton -- that nonsense stopped.

[tampamurray]

01:15 PM on 12/05/2011

Maybe you've forgotten but the budget started getting balanced under Clinton after Gingrich became speaker and forced Clinton to move more to the middle. And, you might want to check on Clinton's 5-year time limit for welfare. It has not been enforced and, as for unemployment benefits, last year they were extended to 99 weeks, and they are up for another extension next month. You'll get no argument from me about Bush's spending but, keep in mind, he had 9/11, Katrina, and 2 wars. Even with that, Obama has still run up the debt more in 3 years than Bush did in 8.

[Xcentric News]

04:41 PM on 12/05/2011

yes but how about government debt skyrocketing because of the insolvency of our money syste? we cannot forget that our "money" is nothing at all like real money, but more like debt notes... it says it clear as day on the paper we carry around.
I know i know, going back to a pure gold standard is not a good idea, so, we should back up our economy with real goods that we really truly manufacter from raw materials all the way up to assembly of the product. But o no, if a corporation can exploit a 3rd world country with next to 0 labor laws for production, they will.

check out the 1985 grace commission where peter grace audited the IRS and basically discovered that NONE of the taxes paid go to any civil service... because the money we use to pay for it is all borrowed, and the money we use to pay employees is borrowed as well.

so who really has real money these days? well, england for one, and any other economy not based on creating paper "securities" as its main manufacturing base.

[Jestnow]

07:14 AM on 12/05/2011

I no longer trust that excessively wealthy corporations and individuals or our governing process will adhere to the comcept of a "social contract". I am preparing myself and my family for the worst case sceniero. We spend our $$$$ carefully avoiding the marketing hype (and as much as possible products from China), we still get books from the library, have no use for redundant communication devices, avoid private and gov't tracking devices, am not subject to preditatory bank fees, etc., etc. I am a former member of that former middle class that has learned a valuable lesson!

[Skeetshooter]

04:57 AM on 12/05/2011

The GOP strategy is similar to that of despotic regimes around the world; ignore discontent, discredit the concerns of the desperate, threaten them into submission and pretend the problem will go away on its own. We know how this has ended elsewhere, including the former Soviet Union. We need to decide whether we wish to be America, or the former United States.

[LightBeam]

01:17 AM on 12/05/2011

Theories involving the right of individuals to expand their personal wealth to the Nth degree inevitably result in systems that are bound to crumble or explode.

It can be argued that perhaps people should have the "right" to amass all of the wealth in the hands of a dozen or so (taking this theory to the extreme), but think about this monopolistic attitude. A world population of stressed out irate individuals living in oppressive conditions who know without a doubt that the system is thoroughly rigged and corrupt does not amount to a balanced flourishing society. The logical result of pure unbridled monopolizing of wealth and property, if taken to the Nth degree, leads to widespread upheaval. History doesn't lie.

We're now seeing more power brokers coming to the realization that equilibrium is looking like a better option over utter chaos and complete societal ruin. This does not involve tenets of socialism or communism. It's a reformation of capitalism.

[mcsandberg]

08:01 PM on 12/04/2011

Jerry Pournelle ( http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/currentview.html ) said it best "Freedom is not free. Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free."

In other words you can have equality of outcome or you can have freedom, you can't have both. All that the occupy mob stands for is the always popular "take from those who have", also known as envy. That this is being celebrated is one reason for my sig:

Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!

[tygh]

11:11 PM on 12/04/2011

OWS merely wants to regulate capitalism, and do away with crony capitalism. Even Adam Smith thought capitalism needed to be regulated. If you want to live as Ann Rand would suggest - try moving to India and living for awhile.

[mcsandberg]

08:27 AM on 12/06/2011

I don't use the term "Capitalist", it was invented by Karl Marx and used as an insult. I just say I'm for freedom - free markets and freedom of action. This country is vastly over regulated as it is, that's why we're in a depression. We'll get out of this one the same way we did the last - cutting government and regulations.

[JWerner]

08:21 AM on 12/05/2011

What we want. . .is equality of opportunity. To where the poor sap at the bottom of the ladder, who can't control who he's born to, can succeed as far as the rich sap at the top of the ladder, with equal opportunity to succeed.

Of course, we can't have perfect equality of opportunity. . .but we can certainly decrease the inequality of it, so that the people at the bottom of the ladder have a REALISTIC chance (not a genius 1-in-a-million chance) of rising to the top. Of course, even doing THAT is 'communism' or 'socialism' or some other absurd label.

[momoluvsu]

07:07 PM on 12/04/2011

I think its a good thing for millionaires to pay-up also. Is it really that important to hold onto all the marbles. Or maybe assist in some job growth have some "token" American companies on US soil that have been outsourced? With all the tax-loop holes couldn't they make money even if they paid a fair wage with health insurance?