Zcom_simple

Johnsps

Shared Sacrifice?: Make the Rich Pay




Change Text Size a- | A+


All across the country, states are facing budget crises and are looking to fix the situation. However, the focus of many of the “fixes” is to attack public sector unions and erode labor rights in general. The justification is that public sector workers supposedly have inflated benefit packages, and they must finally “pay their fair share.”  In reality, this is hogwash. It is nothing more than an excuse to bust unions, rollback social safety nets, all while giving tax cuts to the rich. On the Rachel Maddow Show, Naomi Klein brilliantly describes what is really going on. The recent massive demonstrations in Wisconsin, and the threat of a general strike by some labor leaders, show that this time workers aren’t necessarily going to sit back and take the beating.

 

Most of the ant-union bills are happening under Republican governors. But working people are under attack, under the pretext of addressing a fiscal crisis, even under the reign Democratic local governments. In Providence, RI, for example, a labor-backed mayor recently handed all of the public school teachers pink slips. This was to prepare for firings and school closings that are said to be imminent and necessary to address the deficit. I just wrote something on the situation.

 

I propose one “fix” that would both help solve some of these economic woes and be fair. It focuses on going after those who bask in great wealth even during the economic crisis that they caused. We need to raise taxes on corporations and the rich. We need to collect the taxes that they owe and close the loopholes that allow them to shield money from taxes. The reality is that many corporations pay little to no taxes, and the rich pay taxes almost a third lower than they did in the 1950s—a time of great economic growth.

 

Yes, taxes need to be cut. We need to extend the tax cuts for the bottom 80% of the population–I would even settle for extending them for the bottom 95%. However, the top percentiles’ taxes need to be increased, so here are a few reasons why we should raise (and collect!) taxes on the rich, not cut them.

 

First, history shows that they can handle it. In the golden age of capitalism–a time where GDP growth rates vastly outpaced those of the last 30 years–the top tax brackets paid taxes as high as 94% of their income. High rates lasted up until as late as the early 1970s, with them paying 70%.

 

Second, it is good for the economy and the budget. It provides government income that can be used to provide vital services to the working class–like unemployment benefits, subsidized housing and healthcare, increasing the minimum wage, etc.–as well as be a source of funding for infrastructure spending–which we need badly, especially in addressing the ecological crisis. Both of these things stimulate the economy and provide jobs. Providing the social services reduces inequality and decreases the chances of economic meltdown. It also puts more dispensable income in the hands of people who will spend it, increasing demand and stimulating the economy. Infrastructure spending will directly create jobs–that’s an easy one.

 

Third, tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs at the level we need, if any at all. Wealthy people do not put their money into the economy the same way that working class and middle income people do. They are more likely to save it or sit on it to wait for more profitable times in the market. For example, reports came out recently stating that non-financial companies are sitting on over a TRILLION DOLLARS. Yet, they are not hiring people. This is because they don’t have confidence in the market. They don’t think they’ll make the profits the want. 

 

What we need is a high road, wage-led growth, not low road, profit-led growth. The latter is what we’ve had since the 70s–the neoliberal era. This can be done in the short term by providing adequate fiscal stimulus–much, much, larger than has already been provided–and taxing the wealthy and cutting wasteful spending can pay for it (a few wars come to mind). Also, the government needs to have a more active role in creating jobs through infrastructure spending, etc. Trickle-down economics just doesn’t work.

 

But here’s the catch. It is going to be difficult to for anything to happen on the federal level in the next two years. We couldn’t get meaningful economic legislation passed under a Democratic majority, never mind under a Republican controlled house. We need to consolidate our forces on the ground and build so we can pressure for change from below now, as well as get some people elected in 2012. This does not, however, suggest extending tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting spending on social programs becomes the only option. That will only exacerbate the crisis even more. We need to buckle down and make sure that they DON”T get extended, that labor rights are not taken away, that teachers don’t get fired, and defend all of the other programs that are good–like social security. Also, there is room for us to wage battles on the state level. If we show our power in the streets, as they have done in Wisconsin, we can make them listen to us. A state-wide or nation-wide general strike certainly would shift some power to our hands.

 

The first step is to break away from the narrative that says solving the economic crisis “will require shared sacrifice across our community,” to quote Providence, RI’s Mayor Taveras. Working people are always sacrificing. It’s time for those who caused the current crisis—and for those who benefit from the perpetual crisis working people face laboring under an oppressive system like capitalism—to pay. Let’s draw a line in the sand and pick sides. Which side will you choose?

 

John Cronan Jr. is a native of Providence, RI, now living in New York City. He is a long-time restaurant worker, and a volunteer organizer for the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York (ROC-NY). He is also a founding member of the Organization for a Free Society (OFS). John can be reached at JohnCronan.Jr@gmail.com

Venezuela--_2006-057

I have to Disagree

By Jones, David at Mar 10, 2011 17:21 PM

"Wage led growth" , demand-side Keynesian policies, social wage, welfare state, .... Sorry, I think we have to face up to the fact that we are not going back to the New Deal. Capitalism has changed ,the world has changed. Tax policy, legislative fixes, etc.. all ignore the fact that politics and democracy are hollowed out, formal shells. We ARE broke, in both senses of the word. Tough reality check.

Naomi also said "We are talking about deep transformations of or economy" and though she is hesitant to alienate good progressive populists like John here, she means DEEP.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

584424

Re: I have to Disagree

By Nikonov, Alla at Mar 10, 2011 18:21 PM

Capitalism is beyond repair. Only socialist solution is really possible - or it would be the end of the humanakind and possibly the end of the life on the Earth

Reply this comment


Johnsps

Re: I have to Disagree

By Cronan Jr, John at Mar 10, 2011 18:25 PM

One quick comment because I need to hop in the shower and get some food. Im starving.

I also have to disagree. It's a mistake to think that because neoliberalism has changed the structures of capitalism, that it's all inevitable. There is nothing about capitalism now that says we can't raise taxes on the rich, or have a greater government stimulus in the economy. The problem is one of bargaining power and alignment of class forces. The reason why we don't have any of it is because we don't have the power to force politicians to implement it. In the long-term, yes, we need to get rid of capitalism if we want all of this to stop (and I advocate that as much as I do short-term reforms), but to say that we can't do anything now, save the overthrow of capitalism, is misguided and irresponsible. 

This article was merely making a case why taxing the rich is justified. The increases revenues could help solve some of the fiscal crises, and should be used to restructure the economy. But, again, I'm not naive. I know that the current people in power, and given the relative lack of social forces, this probably won't happen, amongst other things. But it is something that CAN happen. 

And to your last comment. I take issue with labeling me a "good progressive populist." You might want to look at some of my other writings. In fact, I like Naomi Klein, but I think she doesn't provided alternatives to capitalism enough and doesn't attack the capitalist system outright enough in some cases either. But she has been good on lots of things. 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Venezuela--_2006-057

Re: Re: I have to Disagree

By Jones, David at Mar 11, 2011 06:10 AM

John, I should not have used that as a pejorative label, sorry, but ...your prescription is progressive rather than radical.  The way I see this historical moment, there are plenty of progressives out there pushing reform. We need to be pushing the envelope, illuminating a deeper critique. (as does Naomi)
I'm sure this argument is not new to you, but I think we need to walk AND chew gum.  Propose reforms  that will help daily lives, sure,  but always include your end goal, structural transformation. Providing false hope (we can create a kinder gentler wage-led growth capitalism) is Marx's "opium for the masses". Eases the pain but leaves the disease intact.

I'll check out your other work.

Reply this comment


584424

Capitalism in imperialist states

By Nikonov, Alla at Mar 11, 2011 09:47 AM

could be more "nice" to mostly white public only because it had something to prove - i.e. that it was better than "communism", and only because it could explpoit the  world, let "its" workers to have a bit of it, and still had enough.

Now there is NO USSR alternative, and the looting of the world is not bringing enough for capitlaists, so they want to rob "their" workers as well.

The time of  "taxing the rich" in USA is over. 

Reply this comment

Loading_border