This is one of those moments when I feel like I live in la-la land. It's possible that I am insane, stark-raving mad and delusional. Either that or there is a staggering moral obscenity underway in our country. We have plenty of money to fund what needs to be done -- but our political leaders, on both sides of the aisle, seem unwilling to go where the money is: the rich. I know where Republicans stand on this issue. But, where in the hell is the Democratic Party?
I've written this memo to labor leaders and other allies, which I invite you to read -- and if you think it's worth circulating, please do so. Rewrite it if you think you've got a better way of laying out this case: we need significantly higher taxes on the rich NOW. We can raise significant amounts of money from the top one percent to help the people of the country. And, yet, we aren't talking about this. Not really.
It is wrong to focus on what seems like a big-ticket number for a short-term stimulus. We should not exhaust the political capital that seems to be floating around the country to finally reverse years of governing by people who are incompetent and mean-spirited. People are pissed. They know they have been robbed. But, we will lose the long-term battle to reinstill in this country a sense of fairness if we focus attention on short-term action. We have to focus the people on this: the rich should start shouldering a fairer share of the dues we pay to live in a functioning democracy.
While our country is disintegrating, the rich are hiding. They are hiding behind their lobbyists and the political leaders they helped elect. They are hiding behind a decades-long ideology that paralyzes the political system from being serious about what the rich should pay. A recent op-ed by Robert Rubin (a man who helped create the financial mess we are in) and Jared Bernstein, a progressive economist, said this:
We both agree that individual income tax rates and other taxes for those at the very top could be moved back to the rates of the Clinton era.
That is entirely absurd. That is letting the rich off the hook. The Clinton-era top rates only seem high relative to the robbery that took place before and after. It is reinforcing such a tiny frame about what the rich owe society. I understand why Rubin, a Wall Street banker, says this. But, if this is what progressives like Bernstein are arguing for, then, they should step aside and let a serious debate take place.
The rich are killing people.
Yes, that is an over-the-top statement. But, tell me, what else would you say when:
People are dying, getting sick or going backrupt -- millions of people -- because they have no health care. And, yet, the rich aren't paying their fair share to heal our society and help fund a national health care system (though, I would point out that a single-payer system would SAVE the government money).
We are killing the planet. And, yet, even our president-elect is talking about investing a relatively puny amount of money to save the earth. We could do much more--if the rich paid a fairer share.
Millions of people are living at poverty level wages: 45 million workers earn $10.21 an hour or less; 24.5% of all workers earn poverty level wages ($9.60 or below); 10% of the American workforce, almost 15 million people, earn $6.79 or less; and 33.3% of black workers and 39.3% of Hispanic workers earn poverty level wages. We should have full employment and the government should be the employer of last resort, guaranteeing everyone a job. We could do that--if the rich paid a fairer share.
States are reeling from big deficits. In my state, New York, we have a "liberal" governor who talks about cutting education and health care. But, if we went back to a more progressive tax system, we could have billions more--and it would only need to come from the richest one percent. Children may not get decent education, teachers may not get a decent salary and people may get sicker and die in New York simply because the rich are not paying their fair share.
We must win this fight first. If we don't win this fight, all the individual programs and demands we make will be gobbled up and disappear, victims of a cowardly political class and a self-centered elite who seem only to care about how much more money they can grab.
We need leaders to stand up and say: Enough. Enough of the robbery that has been blessed for so many years by the political system. We cannot afford that anymore.
Loading comments… 
To the GOP:
Anything that helps society is Socialism, Communist totalitari
Roads, police, education.
The GOP says:
Privatize and Deregulate
The rich do it every time , if we let them, the suck all the money out the system and crash the whole economy.
Industrial
Please read up on the Great Depression with this time line:
http://www
Deregulati
We thrived with lot of regulation
Government Public Works deficit spending is what ended the Depression
I would not raise Capitol Gains or corporate tax very much. Nor should we impose large tariffs.
Read about:
"Social Democracy"
http://en.
Capitalist
Look to the Swedes and their "middle Way"
And just in case you wonder why you have trouble paying for health insurance, go check out the latest after-tax profit data of some of the biggest pharmaceut
Being highly paid isn't about working harder it's about working smarter. No the same opportunit
Why would anyone continue to work past earning $1million? Would society be better off if a heart surgeon stopped work once he earned the limit?
You want to see medical costs go down? Institute a loser pays judical system where the loser of the case pays all attorneys fees and court costsfor both sides. This would end the frivoulus lawsuits that plague our judical system.
The government should ensure 100% employment
Dramatical
Are we talking about seizing money the rich have already earned and have invested or saved? Wouldn't that be more simply described as stealing?
How much is a fair share? Since a large percentage of Americans pay no income tax at all isn't that also an unfair share?
If we could eliminate poverty by increasing the amount people are paid why not set the min wage at $100/hr? Then we could all be rich!
It's time for our nation to stop looking to the poor for economic relief. We can't afford any more sacrifices
why? by lowering income you will increase tax receipts? The wealthy aren't going to accept a 50% tax rate. They don't have to so why would they?
Getting the "rich" to part with their money will be tricky....
There's always this BS argument that the top 5% pay more taxes than the rest combined. The problem is that they don't pay the same percentage of their income as the rest of us do and the effect of paying those taxes is negligible on the very rich. When I pay 35% taxes I have to figure out what I have to do without to pay for my kid to go to college, what I have to do without so I can pay for medical insurance, what I have to do without to pay my mortgage. When the rich pay 35% taxes they have to figure out which Bentley they are going to do without for a day.
Every nickle in taxes the wealthy pay comes from disposible income (your Bentley example). The bottom 90% dip (to varying degrees) into income needed for human needs (food, shelter, etc.). Any "disposibl
Sales taxes take money away from the people who spend money the most on necessitie
The rich, on the other hand, tend to put their excess money into tax-exempt investment
Can you be more specific? What marginal rate are you proposing (what precise percentage of income) and at what level of income (what exact dollar amount) would it kick in? How much additional revenue would it have raised given our aggregate national gross personal income in the most recent year for which that figure is available?
Left as a mere assertion (If the rich paid more, we'd have jobs and health care for all), what you say seems merely naive or ideologica
Would you be willing to advocate reinstitut
Without detail and nuance, what you're advocating will likely go nowhere. With detail and nuance, however, it can be seen as reasonable
Absent detail and nuance, what you and Mr. Tasini are advocating will get no further than this obscure corner of HuffPo. I agree with what you both say--but it can't be sold by means of vague, unsupporte
Were you in Congress, would you allow a witness at a hearing to advocate--