THIS IS THE FINAL POST answering a series of questions conservatives asked about an article on a quote by Adrian Rogers. The answers begin, with the first two questions, here. The original post is here.
The final three questions are:
- "Why do you insist that the wealthy got that way on the backs of the oppressed class?"
- "Aren't the poor poor because they're lazy, or because they like being poor? Don't employees have a choice?"
- "Don't the rich pay most of the taxes?"
My responses:
- "Why do you insist that the wealthy got that way on the backs of the oppressed class?"
I didn't insist any such thing. I haven't called anyone "oppressed", though I'm sure there must be some people who qualify.
But I know what you're getting at, and I've already given you most of the answer above.
Millions of average citizens, from minimum wage workers to middle management, and even CEOs, work hard all day every day to create this country's wealth. Yet most of that wealth ends up in the hands of people who only have to work if they feel like it.
Some of those people, Warren Buffet , for example, are also workers themselves. They provide valuable insight into where the money should go, nurture entrepreneurs, etc. Some, like, say, Paris Hilton, make little or no contribution in return.
But even the Warren Buffets of the world reap a great deal more than their actual work produces. And that extra money is money that was created by someone else's hard work.
Meanwhile, that someone else is often struggling to find the cash to pay a medical bill or make a mortgage payment. - "Aren't the poor poor because they're lazy, or because they like being poor? Don't employees have a choice?"
Really? What world do you live in?
Have you ever noticed how hard some people have to work for minimum wage? Do you really think they wouldn't like a raise, or better hours, or an easier work load?
I've had this question asked of me in person, invariably by someone who has been very lucky in one way or another, and has ended up well off financially. I understand the desire to take credit for making good use of that luck. But not everyone gets lucky.
We have a system in which, for example, if wages start to climb too fast the Fed raises interest rates, and joblessness increases.
When there are fewer jobs, competition for them increases, and wages drop. The Wall Street Journal will refer to this as a "decrease in the cost of labor", and generally consider it a good thing—since it means more profits for the wealthy.
What it means to the average worker, who has no say in how the Fed operates, is that it will be harder to pay the rent and the doctor's bills.
If there aren't enough jobs to go around, it makes little sense to assume that everybody could be rich if they really worked at it, or that the only reason the people on the bottom are poor is because they make bad choices. - "Don't the rich pay most of the taxes?"
Yes, it's true that the wealthy pay more taxes as a group than the rest of us.
The top one percent (measured in income) pay about a quarter of all taxes. But then, roughly the same people own about 40% of the financial wealth. So on the whole, they pay less compared to how well off they are.
The top five percent pay about 40% of the taxes, but they own almost 70% of the wealth.
On the other hand, the bottom 80% pay only 33%, but then they're roughly the same group that only own only about 8% of the wealth. So basically the people who get the dregs at the bottom of the wealth barrel are required to pay a third of the upkeep.
I don't hate the wealthy. I just think they're short-sighted when they push for more tax cuts, or for less government spending for the poor and middle class.
Our system could use a little tweaking. It makes some people who don't work at all unbelievably wealthy, while the people who actually do the work struggle to make ends meet. I think we can improve on that.
This is not just for the benefit of the poor and middle class, either. A large distortion of wealth is a a large distortion of power, and that undermines our democracy. It's a far greater threat than terrorism.
Communities full of poverty create conditions in which crime breeds, as well. The wealthy would be better off in a world with less crime, a robust democracy, a happier middle class, and a healthier and more resilient economy.
The wealthy would be better off in a society with a solid public healthcare system, which kept the workers healthy, and curbed the spread of disease generally.
The wealthy would be better off in a society where every worker had access to a first-class education.
Corporations would be better off, if they didn't have to waste time and energy and money supplying healthcare to their workers.
The current economic crisis is, in large part, a result of this inequity in the system. The tax cuts the Bush administration aimed at the wealthy, the voodoo economics of the Reagan administration, have only made the situation worse.
At the root, we are dealing with a drop in demand, which is caused by a lack of money in the hands of the poor and the middle class. Imagine how unlikely that would be if the average worker kept even a quarter of the wealth he or she actually created.
I hope I've answered your questions.
