WASHINGTON — The Occupy Wall Street movement that has spread to scores of cities claims to represent “the 99 percent.” Does it?
Ninety-nine percent is perhaps too high a bar for public opinion. But the movement does represent the vast majority — who theoretically should be an important constituency in a democracy. And on many issues, they really do represent the interests of the 99 percent.
The distribution of income is an obvious starting point, given what has happened to America over the last three decades. Between 1979 and 2007, the richest 1 percent received three-fifths of all the income gains in the country. Most of this went to the richest tenth of that 1 percent, people with an average income of $5.6 million — including capital gains. This is outrageous.
In a country that generates more than $45,000 per person of income each year — that’s for every person, including children and babies — there is more than enough income for everyone in America to have a comfortable life.
It is really the distribution of income, and employment, that matter. This is more true than ever before, as it is now clear that we cannot continue to generate so much greenhouse gas in order to keep the consumption, income and wealth of the 1 percent expanding in the manner to which they are accustomed.
Yet income distribution and employment are two economic issues that have gotten remarkably little attention as the rich have increasingly hijacked the economy, and through their soaring wealth, the political system.
The OWS movement is forcing the corporate media and the politicians to recognize these most vital issues, by getting in their face and not going away. That’s why Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York last week evicted the protesters who spearheaded this historic social movement. It had nothing to do with safety or other pretexts. This is clear because he had his thugs deliberately trash many of the protesters’ possessions, including laptops and many of the books from their library.
What a disgrace this man is to a city that prides itself on its sophistication and tolerance and democratic traditions!
The 1 percent has used violence and excessive force against protesters in other cities such as Oakland, Calif., for the same reasons: they fear that democracy in the streets could lead to democracy in other arenas, such as government.
The 99 percent have no interest in our hundreds of military bases and wars across the globe — another life-and-death point of difference with the 1percent that decides, and defends, our rotten and murderous foreign policy.
No wonder U.S. veterans of our wars have played a prominent role in these protests. The majority of Americans want our troops to get out of Afghanistan, which our government refuses to order. Two-thirds think the U.S. military should never have invaded Iraq, and even greater majorities have agreed that all troops should be withdrawn from that country this year. These are points of great controversy among the 1 percent, but not among the vast majority of Americans.
Meanwhile, the congressional “supercommittee” is considering cutting Social Security, an assault that has no public support, while resisting raising taxes on the 1 percent and cutting military spending — two of the most popular choices among the people for long-term deficit reduction.
It was a mass movement that elected President Obama, with record numbers of small contributors and volunteers. But we did not get the “change we can believe in.”
The OWS groundswell is the movement of the disenfranchised, the more than 99 percent who do not give the maximum political contribution to our corrupt political system and therefore have little or no voice. They are America’s conscience and indeed, its greatest hope at this time.
• Weisbrot is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Comments (34)
Add commentThe 1 percent already pay the
The 1 percent already pay the largest portion of taxes paid in this country. That money pays the medicaid, medicare, social security, welfare, food stamps, military... It has been proven over and over again that if you can get something for working less, you will. Marxism has been tried and failed in other countries. Everyone needs to pay taxes and the tax code needs to change so that taxes actually come down for the higher earners and their money will stay in the USA and be taxed instead of overseas in another country that does not tax as high. Capitalism works great, the only thing you have to do is WORK. That is the American dream. You get what you work for.
@Tikitime
You could not be more wrong.
Bush SLASHED taxes for the richest among us, making them exponentially richer.
And if the incredibly rich are "job creators" as FoxTV pundits and Rush Limpuke constantly trumpet, THEN WHERE ARE THE JOBS???
Even bazillionaire Warren Buffet agreed, when referring to billionaires; "We've been coddled enough."
But when all republipukes in Congress firmly and roboticly scream, "Tax increases are not on the table" then there is no hope for reducing our debt. Debt can go away from either increased taxes, budget cuts or a combination of both.
Most civil people, including myself, believe in both, but republipukes always look out for their rich friends, and they won't consider tax increases.
So, we are doomed in a stalemate.
And republipukes are the ones to blame, as always.
I honestly believe that the biggest threat to the stability is not any overseas terrorist cell, it is the American republican party.
p.s.,
@Tikitime:
Regarding your comment about taxing everyone, it makes no sense to tax the poor. Taxing the poor keeps them in a perpetual state of poverty, which makes them more of a burden for social programs.
Stop regurgitating the same, tired, wrong buzz phrases spewed by Sean, Glen and Rush. Please. It's getting old, and few believe you.
Most rich people I know aren't rich because of hard work. Their wealth was handed to them from above, or, they're inside traders. So please spare me the part about how hard working the rich are.
Doubtful
If you take each individual issue, some may have a simple majority agreement. The entire movement has far less support. To claim 99 percent, or vast majority is not true. Depending on your circle of friends, the level of support ranges from yes to not only no, but h e l l- no.
tikitime
You hit one thing square on the head in reference to high earners: "Everyone needs to pay taxes and the tax code needs to change... their money will stay in the USA and be taxed instead of overseas in another country that does not tax as high."
That is one of the problems right now. It isn't any secret that numerous large businesses and corporations are "multinational" so they can put their money in foreign accounts, thus avoiding paying taxes in the US. I've got nothing against working hard; that's how I was brought up and I genuinely wish more of my generation not only knew how to work hard, but also understood the importance of it. But there are a great deal of large multinational corps making money in the US who purposefully bank overseas to avoid paying appropriate taxes that would contribute to the health of the US economy. They make the money in America, off of American backs and American resources, and then take their money elsewhere. There's something wrong with that.
jo, you are so wrong on most
jo, you are so wrong on most everything you rant on about. I don't know where you get your "facts" but it's laughable before it just becomes tiresome. And all the name calling needs to go if you want to be taken halfway seriously.
Buffett is nothing but a shill for Obama. He derives his income from dividends, cap gains and interest which is taxed at a lower rate. He doesn't get a salary. That's how he can blather on about his secretary having a higher tax rate than him. He's playing the semantics game and the left laps it all up as gospel.
sefood, do you know what the word repatriation means? American corporations already pay a 35% tax rate - one of the highest in the world. The reason they hold cash in foreign banks is because of repatriation. If they bring that money into the country, they're taxed again. There have been bills in Congress to allow a tax holiday on that money and the Democrats have stopped them.
It gets tiresome when corporations are constantly vilified. Sure there are some that aren't stand-up but we have laws to keep them in line. And if they repeat the less than stand-up behavior they usually go away. Do you honestly think that's the desire of the CEO and shareholders?
@Calypso
You must be in that 1% range, or you wouldn't be defending the wealthy!
Hey bill, I love the wealthy
Hey bill, I love the wealthy and want everybody to be wealthy even though I don't consider myself wealthy. I just don't get into the class warfare game that the left thinks is going to win elections next year.
By the way, define wealthy for us.
not all bad folks
I do agree with you Calypso in that not all folks who work in administrative/managerial roles for corporations are bad people. Some of my friends work in executive offices for corporations, and they're very benevolent folks. They just miss the bigger picture. The cumulative impacts of exponential growth compounded over several decades.
Would you agree that the economy in the US is bigger now than it's ever been? That more money is being made now in the US than at any other point in history? True, our population is also larger now than ever before, but that shouldn't equate to a $14 trillion dollar federal deficit.
I have no problem with someone starting a business and making a couple million dollars a year. That's great. I do have a problem with multinational corporations making billions of dollars, treating their American employees and the environment like trash, manipulating federal legislation that ultimately makes it impossible for small businesses to stay afloat, and intentionally finding loopholes and ways to weasel out of paying taxes. There is nothing patriotic about that behavior.
Most people who are wealthy
Most people who are wealthy don't consider themselves as such. A year or two ago there was a prominent columnist who explained why he, despite making some $500,000 a year, was not well off, and proceeded to display his yearly finances, treating such things as retirement, a mortgage on a million dollar house, eating out, expensive vacations, and college funds as necessities, which left him with "only" ten or twenty thousand dollars left to spend on what he wanted.
In short, people become accustomed to certain lifestyles and begin to treat luxuries as necessities.
Of course, to Calypso this is all tripe because it's a fact. In Calypso's worldview, only hard-workers can become rich, so the rich must be hard-working. Luck doesn't exist in Calypso's worldview (which is precisely why people born in Bolivia HAVE THE EXACT SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS PARIS HILTON), and every consequence in every person's life is completely their own fault, unless it happens to befall him or anyone he knows, in which case it is Obama or George Soros' fault.
Assuming, of course, that Calypso is an actual human being and not an iteration of Skynet trying to bring doom to the human race so the machines can take over.
Leave the Occupy Protestors Alone
They should just leave the Occupy Protestors alone. They are the symbol of the 99 people who want to live in tents squatting on public property and begging for handouts. The 99 people show the strength of the liberal Obama movement, and they will make sure that liberals get 99 votes in the next election.
I wasn't aware there was
I wasn't aware there was going to be a liberal on the ballot next election. Is Dennis Kucinich running again?
repatriation
So then what's the point of putting the corporate money in international banks in the first place, i.e. Panama City, Bermuda, Zurich, etc.? Sure, I get it that if they bring their money from overseas banks into the US, they get hit again with more taxes. But why not just put it in banks here at home initially so they wouldn't have to worry about repatriation, if they're so darn responsible and patriotic? There's a revealing description of offshore corporate banking that is openly advertised by the offshore banks themselves: come bank with us, we're a tax haven. You won't have to pay high taxes, or any taxes at all in your own country if you put your money in our banks.
Money sitting in foreign
Money sitting in foreign banks subject to repatriation was earned in foreign countries by multinational companies registered in America. The money was never in our country to begin with but if the corporation brings it in, it's taxed for a second time basically.
p, what business is it of yours how the "rich" spend their money? Keep harping on class warfare because it shows you're out of any logical and substantive talking points.
Define luxury for us? Would my daily Starbucks qualify?
Since you're talking about luck playing such a role in people getting rich, would you say BO was one pretty lucky guy?
Most people work daMM hard for all they have so quit belittling them and minimizing the opportunities that exist in America for everyone to become wealthy, if they desire.
@calypso
How can you sit there on you computer and make broad faced lies that everyone can become wealth if they try?
Citizens for Tax Justice
From a recent report by the Citizens for Tax Justice organization regarding corporations intentionally finding loopholes to get out of paying appropriate taxes within the US:
"280 the nation's most profitable companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5 percent from 2008 to 2010, less than half of the 35 percent corporate tax rate."
"Of the 280 companies, 78 studied paid a tax rate of zero or less during at least one year of the three year period."
"And thirty companies had a negative income tax rate from 2008 to 2010, even though they took home a combined $160 billion in pre-tax profits."
“These 280 corporations received a total of nearly $223 billion in tax subsidies, said Robert McIntyre, Director at Citizens for Tax Justice and the report’s lead author. This is wasted money that could have gone to protect Medicare, create jobs and cut the deficit.”
True, many of these corporations have various levels of foreign profits. But they all have substantial domestic profits, and they've all purposefully and successfully found ways to weasel out of paying taxes in the US, effectively parasitizing our country and our tax-funded infrastructure.
I am not sure why some of you
I am not sure why some of you villify success but its discouraging. The BO administration claims an 8.6 unemployment rate...so who are these 99%ers and why cant they find jobs like apparently 91.4% of the rest of us? Currently 46% of the citizens of this country pay zero net Federal income tax, so who is paying all the taxes? Who are all these military members supporting the Occupy movement some of you claim...are you relying on the one guy who is a disgruntled former Marine to represent?
I think most of us understand and agree that some financial reforms need to be instituted and frankly neither party has proven they are up to the task but some of you are coming across as so partisan and so into wealth redistribution that I am wondering why you still live in this country. McNamara, I will use you as an example, you are the epitome of the decline of this country with your attitude and expectations that everyone should have the same and everything should be fair. If you dont like your lot in life work to improve it, get an education, stop expecting the government to hold your hand and make everything peachy.
We used to be a nation that valued hard work, success, and winning. What I see now is a nation of people who think they are entitled to free everything, a big screen TV and kiss on the forehead when tucked into bed. The 99% movement represents nothing except acceptance of their own inadequacies and failures...no thanks.
@Shrike: stop romanticizing
@Shrike: stop romanticizing the past. There's been no change in the country's work ethic, and frankly, I find your self-righteous attitude rather disgusting. Obviously you don't expect anyone to hold your hand, yet you have no problem insinuating everyone else does (although in actuality, you benefit quite a bit from society's institutions). So you're a superman--good for you. Don't expect it of everyone else.
Also, in case you haven't heard, there are more people looking for jobs than there are jobs. That's been the case for practically all of the last century, just usually not to this degree. And you have the gall to demand they simply go out and find a job! What sage wisdom! Next I'm sure you'll bestow other nuggets upon us like, "take a shower if you feel dirty" and "don't do drugs"!
shrike
I agree with some of what you say on both of the OWS comment threads. Especially this: "We used to be a nation that valued hard work, success, and winning. What I see now is a nation of people who think they are entitled to free everything, a big screen TV and kiss on the forehead when tucked into bed." Having gone to college in the Midwest and observing this phenomenon with my own two eyes, I would have to agree with your assessment. There are plenty of exceptions of course, but for the most part, I think that's pretty accurate.
However, the bigger problem at present is the structure of our economic system and the legislative protections that benefit the wrong people. We used to be a nation of hard working small business owners. Especially farms. But now government permitting processes and paperwork are too convoluted and time consuming, and much of that permitting difficulty drives small business owners into the ground. And guess who's waiting behind them to swoop in and buy up their capital, slowly but effectively creating a monopoly? The same big businesses who receive substantial federal subsidies, and the same big businesses who pay for Capitol Hill-registered corporate lobbyists that help manipulate the legislation-writing process (there are over 30,000 registered corporate lobbyists on Capitol Hill; that seems a bit excessive to me).
The commercial fishing industry in Alaska is a great example of how we can appropriately manage our resources and economy. Most fishing vessels are mom and pop operations. They're widespread and diverse. They work hard. They produce something of value. They might not make billions of dollars, but often times the amount of hard work they invest equates to the amount of money they bring home (obviously there's hard luck and rough seas to deal with, which make things a bit trickier). The amount of fishermen in SE means a heck of a lot of household incomes. Food on the plate, roof over the head, meaningful occupation, production of something valuable. Most industries down south, especially food production, are currently operating in a manner that benefits a few hundred white collars in Nebraska and Minnesota rather than thousands of blue collars all across the nation. And they're the same corporations (ConAgra, General Mills, Monsanto, etc.) that simultaneously weasel their way out of taxes while collecting federal subsidies. I repeat what I stated earlier: there is nothing patriotic about that behavior.
sefood, your vilification of
sefood, your vilification of corporations seems a bit emotional. They're really not as evil as you portray them to be. Think for a minute how your life would be different if the corporations went away. And small businesses still make up the backbone of America.
I'm not sure how you vote, but who's trying to put the small businessman out of business with all the added regulations and fees and taxes and forced unionization and on and on. The Democrats.
You complain about corporations weaseling out of paying taxes. If those 'loopholes' are in the tax code, they're legal.
Maybe you would be in favor of a flat tax. I would. What we have now is much too complicated.
Sorry I hit a nerve with you
Sorry I hit a nerve with you PP, I am not against societies institutions at all but you are a member of the group that apparently needs a participation medal rather than earning something that comes with actually doing something.I am hardly a superman, I am a high school drop out who has been working since I was 14 and I am now in my 50s...my poor choices dictated that reality but unlike you I cant find a reason to blame everyone else. I have earned what little I have and unlike someone like you I do not covet what others have been able to achieve. I had the same opportunity everyone else did in that most egalitarian of efforts called life...if I made a hash of it it was of my own making.
Southeastfood, I pretty much agree with most of your points. We have regulations and laws in effect that are the result of cronyism and rampant insider politics that cut across both parties. Like I said on the other OP piece, the OWS movement (if it is indeed a movement) lost their credibility and blew a chance to affect change and to my way of thinking, that failure is just reflective of their overall philosophy and membership. They embrace failure and seek remedies not based on merit or sound ideology, they seek income redistribution and ill defined concepts of fairness. Issues with our tax base, the impediments to small business, social inequality in the forms of disparate education opportunities, gerrymandering to stifle the democratic process etc (I could go on for a long time) are well known but the OWS crowd and its supporters have been all over the map and their rtanks are filled with radicals and opportunists.
You are responsible for your own success or failure and its hard to be sympathetic with a cause that doesnt accept any responsibility for the things they are protesting about.
There's where you're wrong.
There's where you're wrong. For one, I'm pretty well off, which just goes to show what you ASSUME about people who advocate for a more egalitarian society. You ASSUME everyone has the same opportunities (false), and you ASSUME anyone who doesn't believe this is looking for a hand out or is just jealous of everyone else.
The fact of the matter is that your opportunities are affected by where you are born (do you honestly think a kid in the ghetto has the same opportunities as a kid in Beverly Hills?), what social class you are born into (nearly everyone dies in the same social class they are born into), your race and gender (women and minorities are disproportionately impoverished), and other factors (do you have well-connected friends? Did your school have job-study programs that allowed you to get your foot in the door? Were you able to receive scholarships?).
You are correct when you say hard work does pay off. Nobody debates that, regardless of what you may think. If you don't take an opportunity, you don't benefit from it. The issue is that some of receive way more opportunities than others. I can trace the steps that led me to where I am today, and I don't pretend to be some industrious fellow with an ironclad work ethic; rather, I was lucky to stumble upon the opportunities that came along. All I did was take those opportunities and not make any big screw ups.
But we don't have equal opportunities. Not by a long shot.
I have no illusions about being rather privileged, having been born into a middle-class family with the means to provide me a proper childhood, education, and relatively stable home. Others are not so fortunate. Some are more fortunate (though not as many as are less fortunate).
Think about this the next time you oversimplify the world and assume anyone who complains about income inequality or poverty is simply looking for a handout. To assume such a thing is to say that you're better than most people, because you have dignity and they don't. Well, they do have dignity. No one LIKES to take charity or be seen as a freeloader.
i do understand
I certainly understand the goods and services that corporations provide, and I've never once advocated the elimination of corporations. I understand that if Safeway declares bankruptcy, which they almost did in 2009, then they'd shut their doors and we'd all be chaotically (and perhaps violently) scrambling for food. I get it. I just want to see a major shakedown of Congress, Democrat and Republican, to get corporate money out of politics and less corporate lobbyists on Capitol Hill. I'd also like to see tax code loopholes closed, as you mentioned, so that money made in the US stays in the US and contributes to the health of our public services. What we have now is indeed much too complicated, sufficiently corrupt, inadequate when addressing different scales of business, and loaded with designed loopholes. As mentioned in an earlier post, I know there are a lot of intelligent and benevolent people working for corporations. But the legislatively-protected economic system in which they operate requires them to behave irresponsibly.
If I get emotional, it's because I'm imagining what my world will look like if our system continues down this track for another 25 years. It ain't pretty.
Complexity / Tax Code / Meaningfulness
When I hear that the tax code is "too complex" and therefore it should be overhauled, abandoned or replaced, I find myself wondering about something.
Are these objections about the actual principle of complexity or something else? Is complexity bad?
Managing human civilization is complex. Genetic engineering is complex. My iOS device is complex.
In other words, I can see complexity as the "gray" instead of the black and white of the world. And it seems to me that the same contingency of voters who rail against complexity do so in other fields of life be it family unit structures, faith claims, or even sporting allegiances. It's this way or that way and that's it.
Anyway, I don't really have a discussion in mind just observations about how we use words like complexity in society.
Thoughts?
Mike
No PP I think I had you
No PP I think I had you pegged pretty well from the start. You obviously didnt even bother to read my post since much of what you say is echoed in my own post. Of course not everyone is born to the same advantage (thus explains my comments about social inequities in education etc and my lament that the OWS movement blew an opportunity).
Where we part ways is that you seem to think that everyone should have the same base level starting out, you decry that some have luck and some dont, you seem to be implying that everyone should have the same income level....dignity? You have the stones to talk about dignity when you are so willing to abandon any concept of dignity with your view of how things should be?
Oh I get it, your definition of dignity is that people who comitted to college loans shouldnt have to repay them.., people who overextended themselves in their McMansion mortgages should just walk away and be forgiven, your version of dignity is to demand that those who are less successful should share in the efforts and profits of those who are....nice concept of dignity there PP. I really dont think you have the foggiest notion of the definition of dignity. Through our practices we are encouraging an entire generation of people who are dependant on someone or something to help them make it in the world and we are destroying the last vestiges of personal responsibility..is that the utopia you are envisioning? Do you not understand the social destruction you are supporting?
You state you are pretty well off and that you were more lucky than anything and dont have a great work ethic...good for you. It allows you to get involved in topical social issues which is important in a democratic society but it hardly gives you anything other than a safe and secure platform to support something that will ultimately keep those who are trying to crawl out of poverty at the bottom of the heap. You are spot on in your brilliant observations that those who are born in Beverly Hills have more advantages than those who are born in a ghetto but if you teach those in the ghetto that it isnt fair, if you advocate that they should equally share in the wealth of America, if you give them things that they have made no effort to obtain what have your really done? Are you creating ambitious creative people who contribute to this society or are your creating a class of dependant people who have no reason to excell? The answer is pretty clear since we have been doing that for a long time and it has spectacularly failed. You are just advocating more failure from the comfort of your well off existence.
welcome to the fray!
I haven't seen many posts from you shrike, so I'm not sure if you're new to the comment forum. Things can get pretty passionate on here from time to time, and I hope that doesn't turn you away from posting your thoughts on here in the future. I appreciate your insight; it reflects reality. And sorry for quoting you again, but I definitely agree with you on this point: "Through our practices we are encouraging an entire generation of people who are dependant on someone or something to help them make it in the world and we are destroying the last vestiges of personal responsibility."
It'd be interesting to dig down into the foundations of these practices that are turning my generation into a group of dependents rather than a group of self-reliant problem solvers. I've got a pretty good idea of where to start (TV addiction). But that's for another time. I've posted too much today.
Really?-----Really???????
Really?-----Really???????
clarification
I should make clear that I appreciate shrike's comments because they are intelligently and rationally presented. I agree with his assessment about a sizeable portion of my generation lacking a genuine blue collar work ethic. That phenomenon is more apparent in kids down south than in Alaska and is obviously a huge generalization with a lot of exceptions. However, I make no concessions on arguments I've made about corporate greed and irresponsibility, government complicity and/or corruption, the unsustainable levels of exponential growth our economy requires and how it's bankrupting my future, or the fact that my generation is being thrown under the bus for the sake of continued short sighted economic transactions. I agree with some of what shrike says, and disagree with some of what he says. But it's good to engage in rational dialogue when possible (and its not always possible on this forum), especially when you discover that underneath a few layers of disagreement and difference in philosophy, you're fighting the same fight.
But you, Grim...
...are of course a shining exception to the worthless majority with your tireless work ethic and general citizenship. At least you don't come off as being all superior about it.
agreed with PP and lat58
"Like a shark that cannot ever stop swimming because it would suffocate from lack of oxygen, the American economy operates as if consumption must continually expand, regardless of other values, such as preservation of the environment.... Continuous economic expansion in the United States has come to be regarded as synonymous with progress, with power, even with patriotism."
"Too many in the corporate community are seemingly indifferent to the fate of fellow residents of the planet or to their own posterity and are hostile to any effort to protect our shared environment that interferes with the free exercise of their power."
-Philip Shabecoff