73
Gilmore: If the 1% had less, would the 99% be better off?
Elspeth Gilmore holds an Occupy Wall Street sign.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Kai Ryssdal: I don't know that there's an official count of how long the Occupy protests have been going on, but today's day number 58 of the demonstrations that started in New York City. They've come to a close in Oakland, Calif., at least for now. Police moved in this morning to clear campers out of a plaza in downtown.
The through line of this movement so far, at least the one that's been easiest to understand, is the wealth gap. The "we are the 99 percent, but the 1 percent gets to control everything" story. We decided to turn that question on its head a little bit and ask if the 1 percent had less, would the 99 percent be bettter off?
Here's commentator Elspeth Gilmore.
Elspeth Gilmore: I am the 1 percent. I recently marched on Wall Street with the 99 percent. I stand with the 99 percent, but I marched for myself, too. For decades, the U.S. economy has been organized to boost the wealth of the 1 percent.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, 40 percent of all wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the 1 percent. Eighty-two percent went to the top 5 percent. All the rules of the economy have been tilted in my favor. Yet it is not in my interest to allow the disparities of wealth to keep growing. We should not have to hoard wealth in this society in order to keep our families healthy or to get an education. Health and a good education should be rights.
My job at Resource Generation is to organize wealthy people under 35 who want to change this. There are more than 1,500 of us who know that our lives would be better if we personally had less and we could all rely on a collective safety net. We need to re-imagine what is possible.
I want to live in a world where we together provide the basic needs of all people: adequate infrastructure and roads, well-funded school systems, clean water systems, innovative transportation and health care for all.
We need a more just economy -- and one of the ways to get there is for people like me to pay higher taxes. Lets change the policies that keep the wealth in the hands of a few. Let's increase millionaire taxes and end loopholes for corporations. Please tax the income from my investments at least as much as my earned income, it's common sense.
So let me say this as plainly as I can. Tax me, tax the 1 percent. If the 1 percent had less money, we -- a 100 percent of us -- would be better off.
Ryssdal: Elspeth Gilmore is the co-director of Resource Generation. Tomorrow our series continues with Reihan Salam on the same question: "If the 1 percent had less, would the 99 percent be better off?"
Pages
The 1% could have less, and everyone might be worse off. It depends how it's done. I like how to spell out how it's the laws which are in favor for the upper 1%. A solution is not to take away from the 1%, it's to balance the laws to be in favor of the middle class.
And it is common sense to tax all income the same regardless of the source: invesment, dividends, payroll, it's all income.
The attitude of the author is very good, and she has a piece of the problem sorted out quite well. It does however leave our Government with a scape goat in "The People" rather than having the preverbal gun turned on the primary problems that exist in this day and age in politics, being our government and its officials as well as a Bi-Nopoloy on politics dominated only by the Democratic and Republican party.
Our government is so fractured beyond repair that it cannot simply be patched over by taking a little more from those that have more. Our politicians and the corporations that control their actions must be held responsible and removed from office, and I mean all of them. A new system needs to be established in order to create a government that is for the people, by the people and of the people, not for the corporation, by the politician, of the greedy. There can be no room for those politicians that have been corrupted by the old standards, and that means no currently elected official should be eligible for re-election.
Accountability is a very strong order, and our politicians have not had any, nor have they had any of their "sponsors" held to that standard. The people have a right to have a government of this nation that is not simply split into two parties based on their economic prowess, only to flex their muscle in a way that stifles forward progress for the sake of canceling the other out. It's time for a new system.
I never thought I'd see the day when being not rich was so hip that some rich folk would talk about wanting less (without actually being forced to have less). If you feel you have too much, give it away. Any transportation department, school district, water treatment plant or hospital would be happy to take your money. But alas, it's much easier to have it taken away in the form of taxes than give it away yourself. If you really want to give the government more and alleviate some income disparity, pay my taxes.
I admire the nobility of the rich young people Elspeth represents. However, I must echo Mark Twain's sentiment more than 100 years ago when he witnessed the celebrity Europeans invested in their aristocracies and monarchies. He commented that the only thing extraordinary about these worthies was their luck. It's not the fault of these people that they are so lucky, but please, that time is over and let us move on. It is no use to long for benevolence from the top. Our strength has always been checks and balances, and transparency. Whether these rich good people will invest their efforts in things that truly matter (political and financial reform that will stop, or at least trim, the theft from the public) I will keep an open mind, but it is certainly sad that 100 years after Mark Twain, we are actually moving back towards those days when wealth and prestige were a matter of luck.
It’s great to hear this coming from people who have all and more than they need, as long as everyone understands that the problem is much more complex than a net transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. It takes decades to develop public industries, which level the playing field, provide for equal opportunities, and create the meritocracy the U.S. is supposed to be, but isn’t. In the world of high finance, we are no longer a country (remember Network?); just another chain in the securitized lending link. Where and how the money is invested is the issue, more than how much of it at face value. I’m fine with those who have exceptional talents and abilities earning six-digit salaries. Every time I cruise the Big Sur coast, I marvel at those beautiful homes that most can’t afford. No way would I want to see them converted into condos so that more could enjoy them. But huge concentrations of wealth in corporate coffers are doing just that in other areas. Now investors are talking about mowing down individual homes to create more corporate developments and securitized lending (with a tweak of the Eminent Domain clause?), and call it a solution to the housing bust. That’s the sort of thing that has to stop. It’s simpler on an individual level. How many billions can one person be worth, and how worthless are those who have nothing? As long as we don’t lose sight of the fact that corporate and multinational control of whole economies, governments, and media are the main issues.
"Tax reform", "rich vs. poor", etc. are nothing more than distractions many in the "elite" want to use to divert attention from real issues like financial transparency and regulation, political corruption and gerrymandering: issues that really matter in a better future for all of us.
Elsbeth, you made me choke up in the car on the way home. Thank you so much for your deep understanding of what made this country great in the first place: good roads, good education, good healthcare, good prospects. I love your voice and your clarity of thinking and after hearing you tonight, I would be happy to vote you in as the first female President.
You honestly feel that what made this country great in the first place is good roads, good education and good healthcare? These things didn't exist for most of our country's history. Additionally, all of these require the government to confiscate wealth in order to fund them. What made this country great is freedom and individual liberty. This freedom allows individuals to create goods and services people want and need and to charge a market price for them. We need to get away from these nanny state ideals where the government should provide everything for everyone.
So, jj2011, are you saying that if you had total freedom and individual liberty without taxes stealing your wealth that you would go out and build roads and highways just so other people could drive on them? Would you charge a fee to drive on your roads? Would you fund waterways to benefit American citizens at large, or just for your own homes and businesses?
This is an exaggeration to prove the point that we need efficient government to benefit all of us. Yes, there are some lazy people out there who are gaming the system, but that's not the majority of people, just as the majority of the wealthy did not inherit their wealth, they worked hard and long for it.
The problem is the shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, from jobs that paid enough to support a family to jobs that pay minimum wage. Where is all the wealth going? Hedge funds and investments that don't build or create, and off-shore accounts where no taxes are paid. We need industry and activity in the US or we will truly be a society of kings and beggars.
Pages
