A new Gilded Age
has emerged in America — a 21st century version.
The
wealth of the top 1% of
Americans has grown dramatically in
the past four decades, squeezing both the middle class and the poor. This is in
sharp contrast to Europe and Asia, where the wealth of the 1% has grown at a
more constrained pace.
The Democrats’ opposition to Trump is not based on his imposition of austerity measures, or his vicious assault on immigrants. While they will not mount a serious challenge to a proposal that will literally take food out of the mouths of school children, they were complicit in passing the Republicans’ $1.3 trillion tax cuts in 2017 and the record $738 billion defense budget agreed to earlier this year.
The Democrats’ opposition to Trump is not based on his imposition of austerity measures, or his vicious assault on immigrants. While they will not mount a serious challenge to a proposal that will literally take food out of the mouths of school children, they were complicit in passing the Republicans’ $1.3 trillion tax cuts in 2017 and the record $738 billion defense budget agreed to earlier this year.
Bloomberg: 2019 a Good Year for Wealthy; Jeff Bezos Remains on Top Despite $9 Billion Loss in Divorce
4:31
For the already wealthy and those who struck gold for the first time, 2019 was a good year for the rich.
Bloomberg News’ billionaire index is reporting on the money made this past year, including Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos remaining on the top of the heap despite a divorce settlement with his ex-wife that led to a $9 billion decrease in his portfolio:
The leveraging of a giant social-media presence, a catchy tune about a family of sharks and a burgeoning collection of junkyards are just a few of the curious ways that helped make 2019 a fertile year for fortunes to blossom around the world.Kylie Jenner became the youngest self-made billionaire this year after her company, Kylie Cosmetics, signed an exclusive partnership with Ulta Beauty Inc. She then sold a 51% stake for $600 million.It has been almost two months since the Washington Nationals captured their first World Series championship, but people around the world are still singing along to the baseball team’s adopted rallying cry: “Baby Shark, doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo.” The Korean family that helped popularize the viral earworm are now worth about $125 million.
The new wealthy includes Willis Johnson of Oklahoma who has amassed a $1.9 billion fortune from building a network of junkyards that sell damaged automobiles, according to Bloomberg News.
Bloomberg reported that the 500 wealthiest people around the world added $1.2 trillion to their wealth, “boosting their collective net worth 25 percent to $5.9 trillion.”
“Leading the 2019 gains was France’s Bernard Arnault, who added $36.5 billion as he rose on the Bloomberg index to become the world’s third-richest person and one of three centibillionaires — those with a net worth of at least $100 billion,” Bloomberg reported.
Ironically, Bezos was one of 52 people who had a decline in their fortune, in his case because of a divorce settlement with MacKenzie Bezos who is now on the billionaires list ranking No. 25 with a net worth of $27.5 billion.
Bloomberg reported on the winners:
- The 172 American billionaires on the Bloomberg ranking added $500 billion, with Facebook Inc.’s Mark Zuckerberg up $27.3 billion and Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates up $22.7 billion.
- Representation from China continued to grow, with the nation’s contingent rising to 54, second only to the U.S. He Xiangjian, founder of China’s biggest air-conditioner exporter, was the standout performer as his wealth surged 79 percent to $23.3 billion.
- Russia’s richest added $51 billion, a collective increase of 21 percent, as emerging-market assets from currencies to stocks and bonds rebounded in 2019 after posting big losses a year earlier.
And “losers”:
- Rupert Murdoch’s personal fortune dropped by about $10 billion after proceeds from Walt Disney Co.’s purchase of Fox assets were distributed to his six children, making them billionaires in their own right.
- Interactive Brokers Group Inc.’s Thomas Peterffy saw his wealth slump by $2.1 billion as investors weighed a reshaped competitive landscape for brokerage businesses after rival Charles Schwab Corp. eliminated commissions and agreed to buy TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.
- WeWork’s Adam Neumann saw his fortune implode — at least on paper — as the struggling office-sharing company’s valuation dropped to $8 billion in October from an estimated $47 billion at the start of the year. Still, SoftBank Group Corp.’s rescue package left Neumann’s status as a billionaire intact.
And the new billionaires:
- White Claw, the “hard seltzer” that was the hit of the summer among U.S. millennials, helped boost Anthony von Mandl’s net worth to $3.6 billion.
- Mastering the art of fast-food deliveries proved rewarding for Jitse Groen, whose soaring Takeaway.com NV lifted his wealth to $1.5 billion.
- The popularity of soy milk gave eight members of Hong Kong’s Lo family a combined $1.5 billion.
The Lessons of Theodore Roosevelt
To get out of our Second Gilded Age, look no
further than how we got out of the first one.
We’ve been rocked by
scandals over the past year involving the nation’s most wealthy and powerful.
We’ve learned that a twisted multimillionaire allegedly procured and raped
girls in his Manhattan mansion and on his private Caribbean Island; entitled
celebrities and corporate plutocrats paid millions of dollars in bribes to get
their kids into elite universities; pillars of the Hollywood and media
establishments have used their stature to sexually prey upon underlings; and,
yes, our president was caught lying about possibly violating campaign finance
laws with hush money payoffs to a porn star and Playboy bunny.
This
moral corruption is accompanied by the regressive government policies of a
scandal-stained administration. President Donald Trump is rolling back programs
that protect consumers, voting rights, the environment, and competitive
commerce faster than Congress can issue subpoenas. His cabinet includes
17 millionaires, two centimillionaires, and one billionaire with a combined
worth of $3.2 billion, according to Forbes. He presides over the most
corrupt administration in American history, one marked by nepotism and
self-dealing. His so-called “A Team” of senior officials has undergone a record
75 percent turnover since he took office—most of whom
resigned under pressure, often caught up in
scandal.
Commerce
Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose net worth is estimated at $600 million, reflected the arrogance and empathy
deficit that typifies the Trump White House during last winter’s record-long
government shutdown. He suggested that federal workers just take out loans
until they got paid.
But
nobody tops the swamp king, Trump himself. Forget the sleaze, forget the
obstruction of justice, forget the constant dissing of Congress. His defying
the Constitution’s emoluments clause alone would, in a normally functioning
American democracy, make him the subject of impeachment. Instead, he flouts the
rules as if they don’t apply to him. If he gets his way and hosts next year’s
G-7 summit at Mar-a-Lago, we may as well send the Constitution to the shredder.
And yet, as more recent controversies have shown us, including the Varsity
Blues college admissions scandal and Jeffery Epstein’s sex trafficking racket,
this kind of indifference to moral values is not confined to government
grandees.
So,
what gives? Is America drowning in a marsh of unchecked corruption and
entitlement brought on by latter-day Louis XVI’s and Marie Antoinettes? Are the
uber-wealthy out of control? There’s something rotten in America and, if we
don’t fix it soon, we invite a new wave of national decline and social
disintegration.
The
good news is that we have faced similar challenges before. Some prescriptions
from a previous era may provide a lodestar for a future Democratic president to
steer the country in the right direction. As Mark Twain, who coined the term
“the Gilded Age,” once said, “The external glitter of wealth conceals a corrupt
political core that reflects the growing gap between the very few rich and the
very many poor.” He was talking about the original Gilded Age, but that
diagnosis could just as easily apply to our current American condition.
The
first Gilded Age was marked by rapid economic growth, massive immigration,
political corruption, and a high concentration of wealth in which the richest
one percent owned 51 percent of property, while the bottom 44 percent had a
mere one percent. The oligarchs at the top were popularly known as “robber
barons.”
Theodore
Roosevelt, who was president at the time, understood that economic inequality
itself becomes a driver of a dysfunctional political system that benefits the
wealthy but few others. As he once famously warned, “There can be no real political democracy unless there is
something approaching economic democracy.”
His
response to the inequities of his times, which came to define the Progressive
Era, have much to teach us now about how to sensibly tackle economic
inequality. It’s worthwhile to closely examine the Rooseveltian playbook. For
instance, his “Square Deal” made bold changes in the American workplace,
government regulation of industry, and consumer protection. These reforms
included mandating safer conditions for miners and eliminating the spoils
system in federal hiring; bringing forty-four antitrust suits against big
business, resulting in the breakup of the largest railroad monopoly, and
regulation of the nation’s largest oil company; and passing the Meat Inspection
Act and Pure Food and Drug Act, which created the FDA. He prosecuted more than twice as many antitrust suits
against monopolistic businesses than his three predecessors combined, curbing
the robber barons’ power. And he relentlessly cleaned up corruption in the
federal government. One-hundred-forty-six indictments were brought against a
bribery ring involving public timberlands, culminating in the conviction and
imprisonment of a U.S. senator, and forty-four Postal Department employees were
charged with fraud and bribery.
Now,
we are in a Second Gilded Age, facing many of the same problems, and, in some
ways, to an even greater degree. The gap between the rich and everyone else is
even greater than it was during the late 19th Century, when the richest two
percent of Americans owned more than a third of the nation’s wealth. Today, the
top one percent owns almost 40 percent of the nation’s wealth, or more than the
bottom 90 percent combined, according to the
nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research. The first Gilded Age saw the
rise of hyper-rich dynastic families, such as the Rockefellers, Mellons,
Carnegies, and DuPonts. Today, three individuals—Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and
Warren Buffett—own more wealth than the bottom half of the country combined.
And three families—the Waltons, the Kochs, and the Mars—have enjoyed a nearly
6,000 percent rise in wealth since Ronald Reagan took the oath as president,
while median U.S. household wealth over the same period has declined by three percent.
The
consequences of this wealth gap are dire. Steve Brill explains in his book Tailspin that, by
manipulating the tax and legal systems to their benefit, America’s most
educated elite, the so-called meritocracy, have built a moat that excludes the
working poor, limiting their upward mobility and increasing their sense of
alienation, which then gives rise to the populist streak that allowed
politicians like Trump to captivate enough of the American electorate.
Similarly,
psychologist Dacher Keltner’s research shows that power in and of itself is a
corrupting force. As he documents in The Power Paradox, powerful people
lie more, drive more aggressively, are more likely to cheat on their spouses,
act abusively toward subordinates, and even take candy from children. Too
often, they simply do not respect the rules.
For
example, in monitoring an urban traffic intersection, Keltner found that
drivers of the least expensive vehicles virtually always yielded
to pedestrians, whereas drivers of luxury cars yielded only about half of the
time. He cites surveys covering 27 countries
that show that rich people are more likely to admit that it’s acceptable to
engage in unethical behavior, such as accepting bribes or cheating on
taxes.“The experience of power might be thought of as having someone open up
your skull and take out that part of your brain so critical to empathy and
socially appropriate behavior,” says Keltner.
That’s
why we need to reform our political system if we are to survive the rampant
amorality and lawlessness of the Second Gilded Age. Simply put, so very few
should not wield so much sway over so many.
One
of the first priorities of an incoming administration should be to narrow the
wealth and income gap. French economist Thomas Picketty favors a progressive
annual wealth tax of up to two percent, along with a progressive income tax as
high as 80 percent on the biggest earners to reduce inequality and avoid
reverting to “patrimonial capitalism” in which inherited
wealth controls much of the economy and could lead essentially to oligarchy.
The
leading 2020 Democratic candidates favor raising taxes, as well. Elizabeth
Warren has proposed something commensurate to Picketty’s two percent wealth tax
for those worth more than $50 million, and a three percent annual tax on
individuals with a net worth higher than $1 billion. She has also proposed
closing corporate tax loopholes. Joe Biden wants to restore the top individual
income tax rate to a pre-Trump 39.6 percent and raise capital gains taxes.
Bernie Sanders has proposed an estate tax on the wealth of the top 0.2 percent
of Americans.
Following
Theodore Roosevelt’s example, we need to aggressively root out the tangle of
corruption brought on by Trump and his minions. This has already begun with
multiple and expanding investigations led by House Democrats into the
metastasizing malfeasance within the Trump administration. Trump’s successor,
however, should work with Congress to appoint a bipartisan anti-corruption task
force to oversee prosecutions and draw up reform legislation to prevent future
abuses.
“Of
all forms of tyranny, the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny
of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy,” Roosevelt once warned. The free
market has made America the great success it is today. But history has shown
that unconstrained capitalism and a growing wealth gap leads to an unhealthy
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. When the gap between the haves
and the have-nots goes unchecked, populism takes hold, leading to the election
of dangerous demagogues like Trump, and the disastrous politics they bring with
them. It is not too late to reverse course. But first, we need to re-learn the
lessons from our first Gilded Age if we are going to get out of the current
one.
Economists:
America’s Elite Pay Lower Tax Rate Than All Other Americans
The wealthiest Americans are paying a lower
tax rate than all other Americans, groundbreaking analysis from a pair of
economists reveals.
For the first time on record, the
wealthiest 400 Americans in 2018 paid a lower tax rate than all of the income
groups in the United States, research highlighted by the New York Times from
University of California, Berkeley, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel
Zucman finds.
The analysis concludes that the
country’s top economic elite are paying lower federal, state, and local tax
rates than the nation’s working and middle class. Overall, these top 400
wealthy Americans paid just a 23 percent tax rate, which the Times‘ op-ed
columnist David Leonhardt notes is a combined tax payment of “less than
one-quarter of their total income.”
This 23 percent tax rate for the
rich means their rate has been slashed by 47 percentage points since 1950 when
their tax rate was 70 percent.
(Screenshot
via the New York Times)
The analysis finds that the 23
percent tax rate for the wealthiest Americans is less than every other income
group in the U.S. — including those earning working and middle-class incomes,
as a Times graphic
shows.
Leonhardt writes:
For middle-class and poor families,
the picture is different. Federal income taxes have also declined
modestly for these families, but they haven’t benefited much if at all from the
decline in the corporate tax or estate tax. And they now pay more
in payroll taxes (which finance Medicare and Social Security) than in
the past. Over all, their taxes have remained fairly flat. [Emphasis added]
The report comes as Americans
increasingly see a growing divide between the rich and working class, as the
Pew Research Center has found.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), the leading
economic nationalist in the Senate, has warned against the Left-Right
coalition’s consensus on open trade, open markets, and open borders, a plan
that he has called an economy that works solely for the elite.
“The same consensus says that we
need to pursue and embrace economic globalization and economic integration at
all costs — open markets, open borders, open trade, open everything no matter
whether it’s actually good for American national security or for American
workers or for American families or for American principles … this is the
elite consensus that has governed our politics for too long and what it has
produced is a politics of elite ambition,” Hawley said in an August speech in
the Senate.
That increasing worry of rapid
income inequality is only further justified by economic research showing a rise in
servant-class jobs, strong economic recovery for elite zip codes but not for
working-class regions, and skyrocketing wage growth for the billionaire class
at 15 times the rate of other Americans.
Census Says U.S. Income Inequality
Grew ‘Significantly’ in 2018
(Bloomberg) -- Income inequality in America widened
“significantly” last year, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report published
Thursday.
A measure of inequality known as the Gini index rose to 0.485
from 0.482 in 2017, according to the bureau’s survey of household finances. The
measure compares incomes at the top and bottom of the distribution, and a score
of 0 is perfect equality.
The 2018 reading is the first to incorporate the impact of
President Donald Trump’s end-2017 tax bill, which was reckoned by many
economists to be skewed in favor of the wealthy.
But the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S. has been
worsening for decades, making America the most unequal country in the developed
world. The trend, which has persisted through recessions and recoveries, and
under administrations of both parties, has put inequality at the center of U.S.
politics.
Leading candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential
nomination, including senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, are
promising to rectify the tilt toward the rich with measures such as taxes on
wealth or financial transactions.
Just five states -- California, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana
and New York, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico -- had Gini indexes
higher than the national level, while the reading was lower in 36 states.
The
Democrats’ opposition to Trump is not based on his imposition of austerity
measures, or his vicious assault on immigrants. While they will not mount a
serious challenge to a proposal that will literally take food out of the mouths
of school children, they were complicit in passing the Republicans’ $1.3
trillion tax cuts in 2017 and the record $738 billion defense budget agreed to
earlier this year.
Trump
proposal denies free school meals to half a million children
The Trump
administration has provided a new analysis of how proposed changes to
eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly
known as food stamps, will impact children who participate in the National
School Lunch and School Breakfast programs. By the White House’s own admission,
these changes mean that about a half-million children would become ineligible
for free school meals.
Secretary of
Agriculture Sonny Perdue has described the changes as a tightening up of
“loopholes” in the SNAP system. But those affected by the changes are not
corporate crooks or billionaires, but hundreds of thousands of children who
stand to lose access to free meals. For many American children, free school
breakfasts and lunches make up the bulk of their nutritional intake, and they
stand to suffer permanent physical and psychological damage as a result of the
cuts.
Children receive a free
lunch at the Phoenix Day Central Park Youth Program in downtown Phoenix. (AP
Photo Matt York)
The sheer
vindictiveness of the proposed rule change is shown by the minimal savings that
would result—about $90 million a year beginning in fiscal year 2021, or a mere
0.012 percent of the estimated $74 billion annual SNAP budget. Put another way,
the savings would amount to two-thousandths of a percent of the $4.4 trillion
federal budget. But while this $90 million might appear as small change to the
oligarchs running and supporting the government, it will be directly felt as
hunger in the bellies of America’s poorest children.
SNAP provided benefits
to roughly 40 million Americans in 2018 and is the largest nutrition program of
the 15 administered by the federal Food and Nutrition Service. Along with
programs such as the Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children and
school breakfast and lunch programs, SNAP has been a major factor in making a
dent in the hunger of working-class families. But despite these programs’
successes, the Trump administration is seeking to claw them back, with the
ultimate aim of doing away with them altogether.
The US Department of
Agriculture (USDA), which administers the food stamp and school meal programs,
says that the new analysis presented last week is a more precise estimate of
the impact of rule changes in SNAP the USDA first announced in July. The main
component of the rule change is an end to “broad-based categorical eligibility”
for the food stamp program. Food stamps are cut off for households whose
incomes exceed 130 percent of the federal poverty line, or $33,475 per year for
a family of four, calculated after exemptions for certain expenses.
Under “broad-based
categorical eligibility,” which is currently used by over 40 states, households
can be eligible for food stamps based on their receiving assistance from other
anti-poverty programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Under
this rule, which has been in effect for about 20 years, states are allowed to
raise income eligibility and asset limits to promote SNAP eligibility. This
prevents many households from falling over the “benefit cliff,” which happens
when a small increase in income results in a complete cutoff of benefits,
leaving a family worse off than before the rise in income.
According to the USDA,
the rule change on broad-based eligibility would throw more than 680,000
households with children off SNAP. About 80 percent of these households have
school-age children, amounting to about 982,000 children. Of those, 55 percent,
or about 540,000, would no longer be eligible for free school meals, although
most would be eligible for reduced-price meals. About 40,000 would be required
to pay the full meal rate.
However, this does not
paint the full picture. Households thrown off SNAP would be required to apply
separately for access to free or reduced-price school meals. The USDA admits
that its cost estimates “do not account for potential state and local
administrative costs incurred due to collecting and processing household
applications … and also do not account for any increased responsibility placed
on the households to complete and submit a school meals application.”
While the Trump
administration claims that the proposed changes to SNAP eligibility are aimed
at closing up “loopholes” and stopping people from claiming benefits they’re
not entitled to, the reality is that there is no evidence that broad-based
eligibility has allowed significant numbers of people to supposedly “game the
system.” A 2012 Government Accountability Office investigation found that only
473,000 recipients, or just 2.6 percent of beneficiaries, received benefits
they would not have received without the broad-based eligibility offered by
many states.
There is consistent
evidence that SNAP contributes to a decrease in food insecurity, a condition
defined by the USDA as limited or uncertain access to adequate food. By one
estimate, SNAP benefits reduce the likelihood of food insecurity by about 30
percent and the likelihood of being very food insecure by 20 percent. Census
data has shown that SNAP also plays a critical role in reducing poverty, with
about 3.6 million Americans, including 1.5 million children, being lifted out
of poverty in 2016 as a result of the program.
The EconoFact Network
reports that SNAP has improved birth outcomes and infant health. When an
expectant mother has access to SNAP during pregnancy, particularly in the third
trimester, it decreases the likelihood that her baby will be born with low
birth weight. There is also evidence that the benefits of nutrition support can
persist well into adulthood when access to SNAP is provided before birth and
during early childhood. This can have a long-term impact on an individual’s
earnings, health and life expectancy. Conversely, food insecurity in childhood
correlates with greater risk of developing high blood pressure, diabetes,
obesity and cardiovascular disease later in life.
The proposed threat to
school lunches for half a million children has elicited little response from
Democrats in Congress, who are obsessively focused on the Trump impeachment
inquiry. Critical issues such as the health and nutrition of school children
are of little consequence to the Democratic Party, which instead gives voice to
those sections of the military intelligence apparatus that sees Trump’s
actions, particularly his sudden pullout from Syria, as endangering the global
interests of American imperialism.
The Democrats’
opposition to Trump is not based on his imposition of austerity measures, or
his vicious assault on immigrants. While they will not mount a serious
challenge to a proposal that will literally take food out of the mouths of
school children, they were complicit in passing the Republicans’ $1.3 trillion
tax cuts in 2017 and the record $738 billion defense budget agreed to earlier
this year. At $94.6 million, the cost of one of the US Air Force’s newest
and most technologically advanced fighter jets, the F-35A, would cover the $90
annual savings from depriving half a million US schoolchildren of free meals.
The Democrats’ opposition to
Trump is not based on his imposition of austerity measures, or his vicious
assault on immigrants. While they will not mount a serious challenge to a
proposal that will literally take food out of the mouths of school children,
they were complicit in passing the Republicans’ $1.3 trillion tax cuts in 2017
and the record $738 billion defense budget agreed to earlier this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment