Forum Post: Class conflict
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 10:38 a.m. EST by hadenough
(3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Whether in fact it is an organized planned effort, or not, there is no escaping the fact that the financial well being of the middle class is being undermined to the extent that the top 20% of the population earned 53% of after tax income as opposed to 43% in 2007. The top 1% got 17% share of all income, up from 8% in 1979. All this while the bottom 20% received 5% of after-tax income as compare to 7% in 1979.
We need to get real. The shift in wealth has come about as a result of many factors. These factors include but are certainly not limited to the following.
• Maintaining/increasing corporate profits by eliminating the very jobs that produce the goods and services. At the same time upper management receives increases in compensation through increased salaries and/or bonuses. • Reducing or eliminating pension plans. • Reducing or eliminating medical benefits. • Union busting- think Wisconsin teachers.
The voting public needs to be educated. I know you want to avoid politics. I do to. Unfortunately, the Republicans and particularly the ‘Tea Party’ have seen to it that the financial disparity between the 1% and the 99% has indeed become a de facto financial class conflict. Think Herman Cain’s 999 plan. It would decrease taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes for the average middle class family by over $2600.00 per year. Is this what we want?
I believe that any reasonably intelligent individual with at least some common sense realizes that when you are in debt and you want to get out of debt, as quickly as possible, here is what you need to do. Reduce spending and increase your income. You eliminate the extravagances and get a second or at least a part time job to increase your income. Extrapolate this to our nation’s financial situation and you find that the way out of our debt problem is to reduce spending, allow the Bush era tax cuts to the wealthy expire (taxes revert to what they were during the Clinton era (the budget was balanced by the way). Use some of that money to stimulate job creation. Keep in mind that the individuals in those jobs would then be paying taxes, thereby, increasing tax revenue.
I have much more to say, but I want to keep this short.
this was a lovely, well thought out post. my only concern is that it relies on too much of a "people all have an inherently good nature" approach. not that i disagree with the idea, just that i don't see it as plausible in the current environment.
particularly that you mention "use some of that money to stimulate job creation" and there lies the conundrum. Who is using that money to stimulate job creation? The government? Hasn't the government already "created jobs"? The other alternative was that the "rich" or corporations were going to create jobs because the tax cuts would mean they have more resources, right. Well we already saw that didn't happen. Paradigm shift is what needs to occur. People on both ends of the spectrum need to organically begin changing their own personal spending habits and thoughts on the impact they have on others. And yes, that sounds absurd too. But really, I can't see politicians giving up huge pork bonuses "for the greater good", like wise I can't see corporations rehiring Americans at a reasonable living standard "for the greater good" as i also can't see middle class college grads not buy sweat shop electronics "for the greater good" as I can't see people lying about their income so they can take advantage of food stamps voluntarily removing themselves from that system "for the greater good". However, 1 or 2 or 3 people, with the right level of encouragement and altruistic predilections might take on the burden of change in those circles, and that's what we can really assist in.
[Removed]