Fear ‘redistribution of wealth’? Don’t look now
by Gordon Stewart
Posted on Minnesota Public Radio News, Dec. 14, 2010
Those who own the language rule the world. Words can ignite the spark of hope; they can also light the fires of fear.
Take, for instance, the phrases “redistribution of wealth” and “class warfare.” The visceral response in the American psyche is fear — fear of communism. And those who cry the loudest are those who have already waged class warfare, albeit quietly.
Wealth in America already has been redistributed. The only question is whether to let that redistribution continue, or to “re-redistribute” the upward distribution that has already taken place.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is a rare voice of clarity. “Mr. President,” he said in last week’s Senate debate on extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, “in the year 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made twenty-three and a half percent of all income … more than the entire bottom 50 percent.” Polifact.com checked Sanders’ claims and rated them “true.”
Redistribution of wealth has already happened in America, but no one calls it that. It has been in the making for decades. How and why did it happen? How did the 99 percent allow it to happen?
It was a quiet class war that appealed to the middle class belief that one day we, too, could be rich. It was a war of words that sparked the fear that a far-off dream would be taken away. It was a class war in which no one fought back. It was waged and won not by force of arms but by the use of code words like “redistribution of wealth” that hinted a sinister communist or socialist agenda. The result was the slow decimation of the progressive tax structure that once ensured the nation’s fiscal health and that sought some measure of fairness and well-being for all people in America.
One of Minneapolis’ wealthiest people invites me to lunch at her club. The club itself is a place of power and privilege, but I have learned to expect the unexpected there. My host has a conscience. She does great things with her accumulated wealth, but she is clearly troubled today. She wants to talk with her pastor about the drift of things in our state and across America, about her income taxes, and about her faith.
“It’s not right,” she says. “I should be paying more. I’m not alone in feeling that way. More should be expected from those who have so much. We’re not carrying our fair share of the burden. I want to pay a higher rate. I don’t need a tax break!”
Like others who have signed on with Wealth for the Common Good and Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, she knows that she did not produce her wealth. Middle class and lower class wage earners did.
The 2008 election offered hope that finally the people of America had awakened to the redistribution of wealth and power. In 2010 that hope is all but gone, held hostage by a Congress and a president who claim that, for the sake of extending middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance for the unemployed, they must also continue the tax breaks for the wealthy, the growing deficit notwithstanding. The redistribution of the redistribution cannot garner the votes to pass in Congress.
The Democratic Party went down to resounding defeat in the 2010 election in no small part because it had lost its vision and courage. It lost because it rocked back on its heels at the charge that health care and financial reforms were acts of “class warfare” and “redistribution of wealth.” It lost the war of words. No one fought back to reframe the discussion until Bernie Sanders, America’s only socialist senator, spoke the truth of the terrible, growing disparity of wealth in America. He dared to speak truth: The question before the Congress is not whether wealth will be redistributed. The only question is how. Will the current redistribution continue? Or will there be a re-redistribution?
Words matter. Language matters. Ideas matter. So long as the American people remain easily manipulated by code words and slogans that distort reality like a funhouse mirror, and so long as elected officials and candidates recoil defensively instead of leading, the re-redistribution won’t stand a chance. It will be stillborn. The war of words will continue to be lost. Those who own the language run the world.
Is there a preacher in the White House who will finally dare to use his “bully pulpit” to put the issue squarely before the American people? If the word were to come from the Oval Office that the real crossroads is not a redistribution of wealth but the re-distribution of the redistribution that has already taken place, would it reignite the spark of hope in the American soul?
The facts are already there. What we need is a word from the bully pulpit.
Gordon C. Stewart is pastor of Shepherd of the Hill Presbyterian Church in Chaska and moderator of First Tuesday Dialogues: examining critical public issues locally and globally. He is a source in MPR’s Public Insight Network.
by Chuck Collins
Originally posted at Common Dreams, December 9, 2010
In 2010, an essential moral test of a public policy choice is: Does it further concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few?
Or does it disperse concentrated wealth and power and strengthen possibilities for a democratic society with greater equality, improved health and well-being, shared prosperity and ecological sustainability?
Does it move us toward Plutocracy or Peace and Plenty?
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can have democracy or concentrated wealth. But we cannot have both.”
By the Brandeis Test, President Obama’s “Tax Compromise” fails. By extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and instituting a significantly weakened estate tax, more wealth will flow into the hands of the richest one percent and within that to richest one-tenth of one percent.
Most of us are aware of President Obama’s willingness to trade away his campaign promise to let the tax cuts for high income households expire. This will cost $60 billion next year and an estimated $700 billion if it is permanently extended.
But Obama also backed away from his position on the federal estate tax, which was to freeze it at 2009 levels (wealth exempted to $3.5 million, 45 percent rate). He now supports the Kyl-Lincoln amendment which would raise the exemption to $5 million ($10 million for a couple) and drop the rate to 35 percent. The cost difference between these two measures is at least $100 billion over ten years.
For the last generation, this richest one percent, with some admirable exceptions, has been using its considerable wealth and clout to push for public policy changes that have further concentrated wealth.
We are now in what I could characterize as “Death Spiral To Plutocracy.” As wealth concentrates, a hyper-organized segment of this wealth-holder class uses its wealth, privilege and power to change the rules of the economy to further concentrate wealth and privilege.
The logical progression of these policies is a society governed by wealth, a modern high-tech version of the Gilded Age of 1900.
For thirty years, liberal Presidents and Democratic Congress members have cut deals with a growing a bi-partisan (mostly Republican Party) Pro-Plutocracy faction. We’ve won victories for working families family leave, increased minimum wage, expanded health care, middle class tax cuts but the price has always been very expensive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Under Clinton and Bush II, you couldn’t get anything faintly progressive done without a big bone to the wealthy or corporate class another capital gains tax cut or corporate loophole.
Such compromises have been central to the Obama political strategy: To get a stimulus package to save the economy, Congress allocates a third of $780 billion for tax breaks to corporations (and still didn’t get one GOP vote).
To get broader health care coverage for the uninsured, lawmakers surrender the “public option” that would have forced competition and cut into the power and profits of the health industry cartel.
To get a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau included in the June 2010 financial reform bill, lawmakers allow Wall Street to keep its risky casino operation in place laying the groundwork for future bubbles, meltdowns and bailouts.
This is a very costly strategy. It diverts trillions of dollars from the Treasury that could be used for long overdue investments in infrastructure, education, energy independence things that could truly boost the real economy. But worse, it sets up future political battles where the very wealthy and powerful corporations continue to have most of the ammo. In the post “Citizens United” campaign finance environment, this is premeditated surrender.
There are only a few ways to intervene to prevent the “Death Spiral to Plutocracy” and reverse course. They all require an engaged citizenry to clearly say: “We want an economy that serves everyone, not just the wealthy.”
The first intervention is through progressive income, wealth and estate taxes. We urgently need to reinstitute a progressive estate tax. Instead of cutting a deal to institute the Republican estate tax proposal that greatly weakens the law, Congress should press for the Responsible Estate Tax Act which would chip away at concentrated wealth.
The second is through robust campaign finance reform that closes the nexus between wealth and political power. Anything that puts a speed bump between wealth and political influence helps slow the Death Spiral.
The third is to mobilize the silent faction of the wealthy elites that actually see their stake in the common good. Not everyone in the wealth-holding class are actively lobbying to protect their power and privilege. We need a progressive counter-weight to organized defenders of power and privilege. The Wealth for the Common Good network is an inspiring start with several thousand business leaders and wealthy individuals advocating for policies to broaden prosperity and opportunity. They can counter the deep mythology around wealth creation and deservedness that often justify tax cuts for the wealthy and support the positions of engaged citizens.
Senator Bernard Sanders is proposing a filibuster against the tax cuts and he plans to read hundreds of documents about the dangers of extreme inequality in the U.S. Let’s all take a similar stand in our own lives and urge our elected officials to do the same.
by Howard Brick
Published by MetroWest Daily News, Dec. 7, 2010
When I consider my generation’s legacy, I would like us to leave our children a healthy society with ample economic opportunity and not burdened by crushing levels of public debt. I believe a robust estate tax to help pay the bills is an essential tool to achieving this vision – and I’m ready to contribute my fair share.
This lame duck Congress is actively debating the future of the Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Most attention has focused on the fate of income tax cuts, particularly for those households with incomes over $200,000.
Equally vital, however, is the future of the federal estate tax, our nation’s only levy on inherited wealth. At the beginning of 2010, the federal estate tax was temporarily repealed. If Congress fails to act, the estate tax will return to its 2001 levels.
I support retaining the estate tax – and believe we have an opportunity to proactively shape it to be an intergenerational pact.
In the October issue of The Atlantic, Michael Kinsley argues in an article, “The Least We Can Do,” that my generation, the so-called baby boomers, has one last chance to leave the next generation a positive economic future by eliminating the massive level of public debt we have accumulated over the last 30 years and to demonstrate that we have not squandered the legacy of economic prosperity we inherited from the Greatest Generation.
Kinsley argues for a broad estate tax to skim a portion of the estimated $41 trillion intergenerational wealth transfer that will occur in the next 40 years.
Previous generations created a remarkable fertile ground for wealth creation and broad based prosperity. By taxing themselves and investing in educational institutions, scientific research, public infrastructure, and other social investments like health care and the G.I. Bill – our parents’ generation left us the preconditions for prosperity.
But over the last three decades, we’ve underinvested in this infrastructure, run up huge structural deficits, and tolerated the emergence of extreme levels of income and wealth inequality. Will this be our legacy?
The growing and long-term structural deficits cannot be addressed by spending cuts alone, especially those that undercut productively going forward. We need to identify sustainable sources of revenue that do not disproportionately burden lower and middle-income households.
At the same time, we should reverse of a generation of tax cuts for the wealthy and collect more from those who have benefited from our society and who can afford to pay more. We should discourage the build-up of wealth dynasties that undermine our American value of meritocracy.
As much as possible, we should tax activity that doesn’t serve a productive purpose in the economy – and minimize taxation on activity that is associated with economic growth.
Retaining a robust estate tax meets these tests and should be a pillar of our revenue system. An estate tax is levied at the intergenerational transfer of wealth, not at the time of its creation. It raises substantial revenue from those with the greatest capacity to pay.
Families should be able to pass on a modest amount of wealth to children and other heirs before an estate tax is applied. But as an estate exceeds $2 million in value, a gently graduated estate tax should apply at low rates – for instance at 10 percent. By the time fortunes exceed the $20 million level, substantially higher rates such as those historically associated with the estate tax should apply.
If such a broadly applicable tax were instituted over the next thirty years, as baby boomers exit the stage, this revenue would hugely help eliminate deficits and generate resources for the types of investments that previous generations made for us.
I’ve worked in a variety of fields during my career, as an attorney in private practice, government prosecutor and presently as an entrepreneur in the life science industry. I’ve seen what it means for Massachusetts to be a Commonwealth in the value of a strong judicial system, regulatory agency to thwart market excesses, a set of public and private educational institutions, and thriving companies that foster medical innovation and advances in healthcare quality. None of these valuable institutions emerge without significant public investment.
Congress should reinstate the estate tax at the end of this year. It could be the most important gift we make to future generations.
Howard Brick is the COO and a director of Medpanel LLC.
Posted on todayshow.com, Dec. 9, 2010
By Martin Wolk, msnbc.com’s business editor
While Republicans are trading high-fives in Washington over a deal that would preserve tax cuts for even the very wealthiest Americans, not all the nation’s millionaires and billionaires are cheering.
Certainly plenty of upscale earners on Wall Street and elsewhere are quietly celebrating the promised extension of Bush-era income tax cuts along with a planned reduction in estate taxes, compared with pre-Bush levels. In Greenwich and Palo Alto there might even be a few extra baubles under the Christmas tree this year.
But there are also more than a few outliers — millionaires who are saying, in effect, “Tax me!”
A new group called Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength has released a list of hundreds of high earners who say they want to see tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled Dec. 31.
“My view is that in hard times it is important for Americans to come together and unite over the idea that medical care ought to be a basic right of citizenship,” said Eric Schoenberg, identified as a “private investor” who also teaches at Columbia Business School. “It’s only fair for those of us who have benefited the most from this system to contribute the most.”
Of course it is not completely unheard-of for certain progressively minded millionaires to favor higher taxes. Bill Gates Sr., the father of the Microsoft Corp. founder and chairman, long has championed higher estate taxes. This year he also backed a failed effort to impose a state income tax on high earners in Washington State.
And CNN’s billionaire founder Ted Turner said Wednesday that he was not happy with the plan to extend the tax cuts.
But speaking on msnbc’s “Morning Joe,” he said he does not pay much in taxes anymore because he has given away so much of his wealth.
“I’m one of the few examples of a very wealthy person that’s given himself almost to the edge of poverty,” he said. “I’ve got a few million left.”
Turner might have been speaking with a bit of hyperbole. Forbes magazine still ranks Turner among the nation’s 400 richest individuals with his 2 million acres of land and a net worth of $1.9 billion, down from $6.2 billion a decade ago.
Why some wealthy Americans aren’t happy to see their tax cuts continued
by Chuck Collins
YES Magazine, Dec. 8, 2010
In a compromise with Republican lawmakers, President Obama agreed to extend Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy Americans for another two years—breaking his 2008 campaign promise to repeal them.
In return, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment insurance, expand college tax credits, and reduce payroll taxes. Meanwhile, the continuation of tax cuts for Americans making over $250,000 a year will cost an estimated $60 billion a year and $700 billion over the next decade—a terrible misallocation of resources.
Among those disappointed by President Obama’s decision are hundreds of wealthy Americans who will benefit directly from the continuation of the cuts—but who have spent months lobbying for them to be allowed to expire. They have signed public petitions, written op-eds, and called their representatives to explain their belief that top-earners have a responsibility to the common good.
Two organizations of wealthy individuals, Wealth for the Common Good and Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, have over 100 public signers with annual incomes of over $1 million and more than 500 public signers with household incomes over $250,000 who want to see tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled on December 31, 2010. They include a dozen Google execs, a Blackrock MD, Chairman Emeritus of the NY Mercantile Exchange, multiple Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, the founder of Ask.com, the CEO of Men’s Warehouse, the founder of the Princeton Review, and many others.
In their own words:
Warren Buffett, Nebraska: I think that people at the high end, people like myself, should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it. The rich are always going to say that, you know, “Just give us more money, and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.” But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.
Aravinda Ananda, Massachusetts: Most people who earn over $235,000 per year do not earn all of that wealth by their own work. Often, a portion of it is extracted from other people’s work or the environment. I think it is fair for a portion of these earnings to be returned to the common good.
All of us in this income bracket can afford good food, a home, and numerous luxuries, and it is fine for us to contribute to the common good according to our abilities. I am happy to contribute my fair share to the well-being of our country, especially when it goes to things like education and health care.
Ken Lewis, Oregon: The federal tax rate for the wealthiest is at an historical low. Today, it is 35 percent, whereas between 1936 and 1980, it never went below 70 percent. Since then, the share of total personal income of the richest one percent more than doubled. As a successful business person, I have benefited from the current tax system, but considering the federal deficit, I want to blow the whistle on it. I believe we need to move toward having one tax system where everyone pays their fair share.
Elaine Attias, California: An essential human value is “fairness.” Without it, societies are unstable and unjust. Many of us have benefited financially from the “unfair” tax policies of the Bush Administration. This has produced social unrest and lost opportunities. Let us correct the past abuses and restore a sense of well-being and the good society.
Naomi Sobel, Massachusetts: Because my own family’s good fortune came out of a century of public investments, it makes sense to me that a substantial part of our wealth should be reinvested for the public good. Our family business relied on existing infrastructure like roads and bridges to transport materials. It benefited from government grants intended to spur additional development. We also benefited from our nation’s remarkable system of property laws, deeds, patents, and mortgage systems. Our business was built upon a commonwealth of public resources, scientific knowledge, and shared institutions. Those of us who have disproportionately benefited from these investments have a corresponding patriotic responsibility to reinvest in the common good.
Michael DeBell, Washington State: Progressive taxation is a recognition of collective responsibility, a means for improving the nation from which our wealth is derived and an investment in the human capital that will keep our economy competitive.
Rhoda Gordon, New Jersey: Fairness towards all is what this country stands for. Not survival of the richest.
Bryan Kirschner, Washington State: Recently, I took a new job as an executive in a consulting company. We compete for clients all over the world. To grow my business, I need new employees with great critical thinking and analytical skills. I want the United States to invest in education from making it possible for every child to receive quality early childhood education through ensuring the same federal financial aid that helped me is available to every family working hard and making sacrifices to pursue higher education.
As Congress begins debate over whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy or let them expire at the end of the year, I hope our elected officials have the courage to let my tax cuts expire.
Gene Mulligan, Virginia: No one likes to talk about taxes in a positive light, but the truth is that our nation has built a remarkable marketplace for enterprise and wealth creation. Taxes paid for the public investments in research, education, infrastructure and technology that made this possible. They paid for law enforcement and orderly marketplaces. These public investments buoyed my personal opportunities and wealth. I am certain they have done the same for millions of other Americans.
Peter Heegaard, Minnesota: I’m a big believer in the importance of mentorship, of helping the next generation of business and community leaders find their way. But I also view efficient government and adequate tax revenue as essential ingredients in a fostering the fertile soil for business development and healthy communities. Just as a healthy farm or garden needs a balance of nutrients, our country needs a balanced and fair tax system.
Chris Wilhelmi, California: When did it become fashionable, for those of us who have benefited most from the resources this country has created, to decide we don’t need to pay it forward? Without higher taxes on the wealthy, we won’t have citizens with world-class educations, robust health, or the 21st Century infrastructure we need to be competitive. Our forefathers bequeathed to us a strong nation they helped pay for with their tax dollars. We the people, owe the future no less.
Washington, D.C., December 8, 2010 – While Congress debates how to address the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, Wealth for the Common Good today joins with Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, a campaign of the Agenda Project, and a wide coalition of grassroots organizations to deliver 50,000 petition signatures calling on Congress to stand up for working families and allow high-income tax cuts to expire.
Wealth for the Common Good and the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength have over 100 public signers with annual incomes of over $1 million and 500+ public signers with household incomes over $250,000 who want to see tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled on December 31, 2010. They include a dozen Google execs, a Blackrock MD, Chairman Emeritus of the NY Mercantile Exchange, multiple Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, the founder of Ask.com, the CEO of Men’s Warehouse, the founder of the Princeton Review, and many others.
“There are only 375,000 people in the entire country who make more than $1 million a year,” said Agenda Project founder Erica Payne. “They pay lower taxes now than they have for most of the last 80 years. Given the financial situation our country faces, it is grossly irresponsible to let these millionaires pay less than their fair share.”
“We’re alarmed that President Obama is compromising on high income tax cuts,” said Alison Goldberg, spokesperson for Wealth for the Common Good. “Hundreds of the people who would benefit from high-income tax cuts are speaking out that they don’t think their tax cuts should be extended.”
“I don’t like paying taxes, but they are necessary for our country to operate. Extending tax cuts for the wealthy would be a worse mistake than creating them in the first place,” said Bill Gawthrop, Former Founder, President, Chairman of the Board of Green Mountain Geophysics.
“When main street consumers are doing better, we all will do better,” said Mitchell Gold, CEO of Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams Company, a home furnishings business. “As a business owner who has created hundreds of jobs over the past two decades, I know we need tax and economic policies that build strong and sustainable economic growth. And while my tax rate was higher ten years ago, I was making more money and my business was doing far better. Tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent will not help Main Street, it will only further mortgage our future.”
These organizations are joining the Other 98 percent, True Majority, and others to combine their signatures for delivery to Congressional offices on Wednesday.
Wealth for the Common Good is a network of business and civic leaders, wealthy individuals and partners, promoting fair and adequate taxation to support public investment in a healthy economy.
Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength is a campaign of The Agenda Project, a New York based public policy institute.
Borrowing during hard times and making smart investments could boost future productivity and create good jobs.
By Originally published by Other Words
How would you spend $700 billion? Congress has to decide this month.
One simple solution would be for Congress to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for households with incomes over $250,000 for another decade. That would use up all $700 billion.
I feel bad for Congress. Lawmakers are under a lot of pressure to extend these tax cuts by New Year’s Eve when they expire. Of course, it’s similar to my teenage daughter who spent all weekend goofing off and was up late on Sunday night doing her homework. She’s feeling pressure, too.
Congress must decide by year’s end whether to give these high-income households an extravagant holiday package. These are the same fortunate people who gave Congress those memorable campaign contributions in September and October. Members of Congress, at least those who won their re-election campaigns, may be feeling generous.
On the other hand, opinion polls show that the U.S. public strongly supports letting the tax cuts for high-income households expire. We’ve got a list of other priorities, such as fixing our infrastructure, reducing our energy bills, and reducing the deficit.
Congress has been putting off this decision all year. But if lawmakers are mindful of America’s best interests, it shouldn’t take long to make their decisions.
It’s the choice between putting “chicken in every pot” or putting a Bentley in every Wall Street banker’s garage by extending tax cuts for the richest Americans.
Congress could extend tax cuts for the wealthy so that every affluent U.S. teenager could receive free Justin Beiber tickets once a year for life. Or lawmakers could extend unemployment insurance at a time when every available job has five applicants.
We need a combination of paying down the debt and making strategic investments that will strengthen our economy. Borrowing during hard times and making smart investments could boost future productivity and create good jobs in the process.
Such investments could include reducing our dependence on foreign oil, repairing our aging infrastructure, retrofitting buildings to make them energy-efficient, and ensuring that our children have the skills they need to participate in the new economy. These kinds of investments would pay for themselves quickly in increased productivity and tax revenues to pay down debts.
So, what could we do with $700 billion over the next decade?
Well, we could build 107,666 new green schools, at the estimated cost of $6.5 million per school. These could replace energy-inefficient schools, generate millions of jobs in the real economy, and create healthy learning environments for the next generation.
Or we could weatherize every home in the United States. The estimated cost of retrofitting all of our 129 million residential units to geographically appropriate standards is $650 billion. This would greatly reduce the need for imported oil and new power plants–and save residents billions of dollars in future energy costs.
How about fixing every substandard bridge? The American Society of Civil Engineers argues we need a 30-year plan to fund needed repair, renovation, or construction of our nation’s deficient bridges. Seven hundred billion dollars would cover the investment needed for the next 41 years.
We could fund a “G.I. Bill” for the next generation, providing 14 million college scholarships for eligible graduating seniors. Making a bold investment in the next generation, like we did with the post-World War II generation, would have enormous pay back.
Almost every state in the union is facing huge budget deficits. The Great Recession has taken a hit against state tax revenues. A percentage of the $700 billion could help strapped states maintain essential services, and employ enough police officers, fire-fighters, and teachers to keep their communities safe and constituents educated.
Congress is truly in a bind. Should the nation borrow $700 billion to help the wealthy, $826 billion if we include interest costs? Or should we pay down the deficit, help ourselves at the state level, and invest in the infrastructure for future prosperity?
Congress is waffling. Our representatives and senators are talking about a compromise of extending the high-income tax cut for two years. This would cost $67 billion.
What would you do with $67 billion? Lawmakers may need our help to make a wise decision.
By Kent Hoover
Business First (Columbus), December 3, 2010
Also in Pittsburgh Business Times, Phoenix Business Journal, Boston Business Journal, Buffalo Business First, Business Journal (Tampa Bay) and other American City Business Journals
Most business groups support extending tax cuts for wealthy Americans, but some businesspeople contend the economy would benefit from letting these tax rates go up.
Business for Shared Prosperity and Wealth for the Common Good have sent Congress petitions signed by business owners who support higher tax rates for households making more than $250,000 a year.
“The claim that ending Bush-era tax cuts on income over a quarter of a million dollars will hurt the economy, reduce employment and burden small businesses is patently false,” said petition signer Brian Setlzer, president of TriLibrium accountants in Portland, Ore.
Retired banker Peter Heergaard said “efficient government and adequate tax revenue” are “essential ingredients in fostering the fertile soil for business development and healthy communities.”
Meanwhile, more than 90 millionaires have asked Congress to raise taxes on people making more than $1 million a year. Signers of this petition, organized by the Agenda Project, include Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, and several Google executives.
“We have done very well over the last several years,” their letter to President Barack Obama reads. “Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers.”
Copyright 2010 American City Business Journals
by Libbey Goldberg
Published by Common Dreams on Dec. 1, 2010
If all of us are to thrive in the United States, we need accountability and support from our public systems of education, health, and transportation — the very systems that we invest our hard-earned tax dollars in.
Unfortunately, the 2001 Bush-era tax cuts gave $700 billion in breaks over eight years to those with annual incomes more than $250,000. The government borrowed money to make these tax cuts possible.
These cuts are due to expire at the end of 2010, but Congress is debating whether to extend them. I come from a family that will pay more if the cuts expire, and I’m urging our lawmakers and President Obama to let the high-income tax cuts expire. We can’t allow these irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans continue.
If restored, these taxes could bring in an estimated $700 billion in revenue during the next decade. That is money that could be far better spent on investments in our schools, infrastructure, research institutions and social services.
The story that I was told about how my family accumulated its wealth goes like this: “My grandfather grew up poor, the son of produce peddlers, Jewish refugees from Poland. He made his own fortune through sheer will, hard-work, shrewd business sense and intelligence.”
This story is in large part true — my grandfather was ambitious, intelligent, and extremely focused. The part that is missing is that my grandfather would likely never have achieved his success without the public education system. He would not have achieved his success without the community of Jewish professionals who had also depended on public infrastructure for their good fortune. While he did suffer anti-Jewish discrimination, his white skin privilege and his years spent at the University of Texas opened all the doors to upward class mobility for my Papa Billy.
By allowing our public institutions to wither away without proper funding, we are closing the door for others to achieve success. The idea of the American Dream, pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, is always an incomplete story.
Those of us who have disproportionately benefited from public institutions have a special responsibility to make sure that others can also benefit. Unless all of us are thriving, none of us is truly thriving. It is immoral and short-sighted for wealthy families to evade paying their share of taxes so that their wealth accumulates more and more, being passed on through the generations. For this reason, I also urge Congress to restore the estate tax, which is suspended for the duration of this year, thanks to a 2001 Bush administration maneuver.
In order to take care of myself, I must also take care of my community. By investing in public institutions and community organizations, I am helping to create a society where everyone has enough, not just a select elite.
May we all thrive.
Libbey Goldberg is a chef and social justice activist living in Oakland, California. She is active with Wealth for the Common Good (www.wealthforcommongood.org), a network of business and civic leaders, wealthy individuals and partners, promoting fair and adequate taxation to support public investment in a healthy economy.