Class warfare? Maybe. But the war has been going on for awhile now. It’s about time the middle class realized it’s being assaulted. Krugman:
Working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the median family doubled between 1947 and 1973. But it rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003, and much of that gain was the result of wives’ entering the paid labor force or working longer hours, not rising wages.
Meanwhile, economic security is a thing of the past: year-to-year fluctuations in the incomes of working families are far larger than they were a generation ago. All it takes is a bit of bad luck in employment or health to plunge a family that seems solidly middle-class into poverty.
But the wealthy have done very well indeed. Since 1973 the average income of the top 1 percent of Americans has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1 percent has tripled.
Why is this happening? I’ll have more to say on that another day, but for now let me just point out that middle-class America didn’t emerge by accident. It was created by what has been called the Great Compression of incomes that took place during World War II, and sustained for a generation by social norms that favored equality, strong labor unions and progressive taxation. Since the 1970’s, all of those sustaining forces have lost their power.
Since 1980 in particular, U.S. government policies have consistently favored the wealthy at the expense of working families – and under the current administration, that favoritism has become extreme and relentless. From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy “reform” that punishes the unlucky, almost every domestic policy seems intended to accelerate our march back to the robber baron era.
Read that again, then remember that folks like our good Senator Bayh decided that repealing the estate tax was more pressing than eliminating or further cutting the income tax. That is to say, when deciding whether a worker had more claim to his paycheck at the end of the week or an heir had more claim to his daddy’s estate, Senator Bayh sided with the heir.
Personally, I would have kept the Clinton tax structure in place. It was working well for us, and I really, really hate deficits. But, if I was determined to cut taxes, I would’ve felt the person who worked for his money had a greater claim to it than the heir.
Leave a Reply