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
I applaud Elspeth Gimore for donating her time and money to charitable organizations.
However, I take issue with somebody who has inherited (and presumably not built) their wealth calling for higher taxes.
A donation to the US Treasury is always an option for those who feel that they should contribute more : http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
"From my house high on the hill I can see that the river is rising, and we all need to sand-bag the river-bank or the town will be flooded."
---"If you're so fired-up about this, go do it yourself, and leave the rest of us alone."
Sometimes the view is clearer from above, and many times one person's actions are de minimus.
An oft-repeated suggestion made by those who oppose fair taxes for the rich is that one can always make a "donation." Many of the wealthy *do* donate to nonprofits, charities, and maybe even the IRS. But, there should also be minimum standards.
>>>>> "Many of the wealthy *do* donate to nonprofits, charities, and maybe even the IRS. But, there should also be minimum standards." >>>>> I hope you can appreciate the intrinsic philosphical (not to mention practical) difference between taxes and charitable donations. Minimum standards do exist : capital gains/dividend tax on investment income. If her $1,000,000 is invested in tax free municipal bonds then she shouldn't be taxed.
Yes, refreshing, I agree politically, but...it has to be deeper than shifting wealth. It has to address and realign the misguided value system where conspicuous consumption; staying ignorant of how 90% of the global world live; disdain for simplicity and respect of the earth and of one another drive our culture. Still, let's begin with the 1%, because...money speaks!
Priceless and selfless logic! She must be a very special person! I will go out of my way to read her message in public and check out Resource Generation. Leader like her are the catalyst that will make Occupy NH grow strong and healthy! The 99% will stand and salute her action! Only one word will be acceptable to her message and that is 'WOW'!
What would we say to the 1% if they posted an opinion that if the 99% had less the 1% would have more. Wouldn't we call that greedy. Isn't it greedy or envious or covetous if anyone says it Elspeth. Besides, that is not how wealth works. The economy is not a finite pie that gets cut up and distributed. The government has proven it is not competent to manage individual wealth, look at SSI. We are free to elect honest or dishonest people. We are free to spend our money as we wish. These are the vehicles for change in a free society. If you don't like Apple having so much money, don't buy their products. If you like the product enough to spend your hard earned dollars on it, don't count on the government to give some of it back to you. Get it? Get a job and give away as much of your earnings as you like to whomever you like. You have the freedom to do so.
I agree with Richard NYC. "How refreshing." After hearing Elspeth Gimore's words, I sent a link to this segment and the following to some friends and relatives:
"Here, finally, is a commentary that clearly and simply articulates my exact point of view regarding our current financial dilemma. It's not a program or set of laws or a health care program or a budget or a set of cost-cutting measures. It's an attitude. If shared by the general population, I believe we would quickly find a solution to the problem."
If the 99% had more then the 1% would have more too. Putting money into the hands of consumers will drive increases in corporate profits and ultimately in real estate values that will make the rich richer. Trickle up works, unlike trickle down that never happened despite record breaking shifts in wealth to the top. Like many in the lower half of the upper 1% my net worth peaked at the end of the Clinton administration when I happily paid more in taxes.
Pages
