Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Guess Who's Paying for Dinner?

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted June 11, 2005.


Under the Bush tax plan, by 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will be paying as much as 14 percent more of their incomes than those who are hyper-rich.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Almost All U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison For Non-Homicide Crimes Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Molly Ivins

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

David Cay Johnston, the invaluable New York Times reporter who specializes in our tax system, has come up with some staggering figures on what he calls "the hyper-rich," the wealthiest one-thousandth of the population, and their taxes.

"The share of the nation's income earned by those in this uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980. ... The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell."

"Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest income -- a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data -- now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000."

"Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."

"The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the Bush tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million -- thousands and even tens of thousands annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax."

Under the Bush tax plan, by 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will be paying as much as 14 percent more of their incomes than those who are hyper-rich. (All figures are from the Times.)

Whenever I write about such matters, the brethren on the right accuse me of "fomenting class warfare" or of unseemly envy of the rich. Why should I give a fig if 338,400 families with more than $10 million are having a high old time? Because of the numbers.

According to Johnston, that group has grown by more than 400 percent since 1980, after adjusting for inflation, while the total numbers of households has grown only 27 percent. This has nothing to do with envy -- Paris Hilton strikes me more as a subject for pity, and I actually admire Bill Gates and George Soros. It is about what is happening to this society. When the rules are increasingly fixed to benefit only a few ridiculously wealthy people, that leaves guess who with a larger portion of the tax tab.

And we are talking serious money. In addition to paying the same percentage of their income as those in the $50,000 to $75,000 range, the hyper-rich are very good at finding ways -- both legal and illegal, observes Johnston -- of sheltering a lot of income even from the taxes they are supposed to pay. The Texas billionaires and Bush buddies Charles and Sam Wyly are now under investigation by the IRS, SEC and Manhattan district attorney concerning a tax-shelter plan run out of the Isle of Man, according to the Independent of Britain.

Look, Medicare is being cut, Pell grants are way down, food stamps are being cut -- every day we get news from Washington that some new measure hurting the poor or the middle class has been put in place. At the same time, the country is running up a monstrous debt that will be passed to our children.

This is ruinous folly. This is not about class envy, it is about ridiculous, unfair and harmful public policy.

The Times has also been running a series on class in America. The bad news is that social mobility in this country -- the old Horatio Alger idea that we can get rich by working hard -- is less true now than it ever was. It turns out the American dream of moving up is now more likely to occur in Britain and France, those supposedly class-riddled countries. I suggest this has happened in large part because our government now functions as a fully paid arm of the wealthy and of corporate interests. The country is becoming internally calcified.

When Republican cuts to programs for veterans, troops, education or health care come up, Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., has regularly offered amendments to restore funding and pay for it by reducing (not eliminating) the Bush tax cuts to the hyper-rich slightly. Every time, the Republicans vote to keep the tax cuts for the millionaires and let the troops or education take the hit. What Johnston's study shows is that the hyper-rich are now taking advantage of the merely rich. So now what will the Republicans do?

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Needed: vibrant middle class
Posted by: ggmurray on Jun 11, 2005 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For America to thrive, there must be a vibrant, expanding, and hopeful middle class. Policies that shrink the middle class weaken America. It's that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

top heavy
Posted by: Shakti on Jun 11, 2005 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At what point does the inequity in power and wealth make a nation so top heavy that the imbalance causes it to fall?

What we are witnessing is the establishment of a fascist plutocracy. But how long can it last? Will average Americans become so downtrodden that they will suffer through generations of living in a kind of high-tech serfdom?

What does history tell us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JINGOIST
Posted by: jingoist on Jun 11, 2005 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With our incredibly robust ecocomy, leftists everywhere are being exposed to a phenomenon they should celebrate!! Ms. Ivins calls them the "hyper rich", which is a curious choice of words for those individuals who help drive the economy to ever greater heights. Why should you socialists (of all shades) celebrate these American success stories? I'm glad you asked. These "hyper rich" plow money back into the American economy in so many ways. They pay an enormous share of income taxes for one thing! When Molly points out that their share of Medicare or Social Sec. taxes is "unfairly" capped, that is misleading. I'm unsure if it's purposely so. Let me make one absolute truth abundantly clear to all economically ignorant people out there. Ready?? When you pay taxes it goes into a general fund. There is no social security "lockbox" where you have money stored. The Govt. collects this money in one large "bag" from which they first pay the bills and the remainder goes to their various vote buying schemes. The TOTAL tax contribution of these "hyper rich" is the only thing that matters since all of the money goes into the same pot anyway! Don't you just love those fraudulant little statements sent to you by the Social Security Admin. explaining that you have an account with "X" amount of dollars in it ? Funny thing is, that if you die too young that "account" of yours disappears into the ether!!! Which essentially means that the govt. has stolen from you. Back to those mean, evil, hyper rich. In addition to the huge tax burden paid by these individuals, they drive the economy in other ways as well. They buy yachts, planes, expensive cars, huge in-ground pools, monkeys (if you're M.J.) and many other goods and services that employ literally thousands of people. The guy who owns the "ceramic paint" franchise, in turn has to reinvest more into his company for new equipment and workers to paint these high dollar homes. Everyone comes out on top. So whats happening with misinformed articles like this? Many things. The most important of them is class envy and hatred. It empowers elites to have a ready made group of angry, otherwise intelligent, ill-informed people in the ranks. No matter what your religous beliefs are, G-d wasn't kidding about the 10th Commandment. Now go out there and hug a rich person! JINGOIST

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: treehuggingliberal
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: Corporate Taxes Posted by: treehuggingliberal
» RE: Corporate Taxes Posted by: jingoist
» RE: Corporate Taxes Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: Corporate Taxes Posted by: lrrysgl
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: lrrysgl
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: sedrik39
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: daniel1982 Posted by: sedrik39
» RE: daniel1982 Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: daniel1982 Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: lrrysgl
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: lrrysgl
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: Sandra
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: bwbrenton
» RE: to "catapult the propaganda" Posted by: treehuggingliberal
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jreal
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: truth
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: lrrysgl
Liberals Created the Middle Class
Posted by: thirdmg on Jun 11, 2005 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans don't often notice that their once large middle class came into being largely through the liberal government programs and policies of FDR and others who followed his lead. And the plummeting decline of that same class has come about under the return of the economic slash-and-burn tactics used by the kind of conservative Republican plutocrats who used to run the country before FDR.

By not understanding its own its roots and by turning resentfully against liberalism, the middle class has mostly itself and its self-congratulating complacency to blame for its own destruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 3 Most Important Issues
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jun 11, 2005 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly's column covers three important issues we face.

Fisrt, we must repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. That should be a no-brainer. Other tax simplifications should include repealing the standard and itemized deductions and personal exemptions and treating all income equally.

Secondly, we must reverse the Bush tax-cuts-for the-wealthy and pay down the deficit and the national debt. The Bush deficit is a scurrilous, intolerable attack on the middle class, and on my grandchildren.

Thirdly, and maybe most important, we must save Social Security by repealing the $90,000 income cap on Social Security contributions. That would save the system without reducing benefits and perhaps even allow for reduction of the 6.2% rate to something lower.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 3 Most Important Issues Posted by: bmikkelsen
Bush-Hoover? Is there a difference?
Posted by: gopbarfbag on Jun 11, 2005 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think of class and the seperation of wealth in the U.S. as shaped like a spinning top. The hyper-rich are the point at the bottom and proportionatley the rest (us) of the spinning top gets fattest towards the middle (middle class) where all of the bulk and weight is. The rest of the top from the fattest part upwards is the working class and the poor.
According to some idiots, the hyper rich at the tip supports the rest of the country above it, and that we should all love them and admire them because they are our best hope to keep us spinning round and round in endless debt and obscurity. Well, what happens when the top stops spinning? The weight and size of the rest of it crashes and falls and sputters around violently until it rests and someone, a genuine saviour and a progressive hero like FDR comes along to pick it up and get it moving agian- you could call the fallen top a DEPRESSION. That's where George Bush is leading America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Historical Perspective (plus a little rant) I
Posted by: bonapartist on Jun 11, 2005 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmm, interesting. I especially like how the author of the above article is accused of fermenting class warfare. Strictly speaking it is impossible to conjure or ferment a revolution from the thin air. Organized groups can accelerate it or slow it down but the roots of any wide spread civil dissatisfaction are always socio – economic and they span over a number of years.

For any political regime to be stable it must have a support of majority of the population or, having failed in that, of at least significant minority. The fact is that top 1% of America’s richest is too small of a number to secure long - term stability to the political structure that is currently erected. That means that, in the long run, dissatisfaction will grow and probably lead to the civil unrest although I doubt any form of revolution could take place.

Throughout the history the ruling elites of different states had to find a way to make their programme appealing to the significant percentage of their populations. Alternative was gradual weakening and ultimately a collapse that either is violent internally (like for instance in Russia in 1917) or violent externally (like in the case of Poland during 1700s).

For all practical purposes US today is a plutocratic republic and not a democracy. In it is in the nature of capitalism to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Historically the state provided checks and balances to prevent oligarchies from becoming too powerful and thus threaten the very existence the state itself. It is a pragmatic approach and there is nothing particularly liberal or socialist in it. German chancellor Bismarck did and so did Napoleon etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kevin Phillips, a Republican, said much the same in recent years
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 11, 2005 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He compared the transfer of wealth to the rich and found that since the Reagan years we have given them more than any previous time in American history.

I do not know what it takes to shake some sense into the American electorate. Leadership, I suppose. But when we find one will they just assassinate him/her? It has worked so far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals Created the Middle Class - Redux
Posted by: thirdmg on Jun 12, 2005 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a prior message on this page, I argued that liberals created the middle class, and that the middle class has been committing suicide in recent decades by voting Republican. Today, an article has appeared in The NY Times (posted on Common Dreams) which points out the same thing and also shows that the radical right uses disinformation to prevent the public from knowing what's actually going on:

Losing Our Country

"These partisans rely in part on obfuscation: shaping, slicing and selectively presenting data in an attempt to mislead."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh those poor yuppies
Posted by: winstonsmithii on Jun 12, 2005 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly's column on this is a bunch of a baloney in my view.

I don't exactly feel sorry for any of the people who make $80k to $400k, and then discover that they are paying more taxes than those above them in income. Many of these people are the targets of recruitment every time there is an organizational expansion or any other kind of change. The top dogs are always looking for somebody to act as consultants, middle-managers, and whatnot, and there is always a willing layer of careerists who don't give a damn about anybody else and who are going to use their money to basically to play, usually stupid little games.

I once worked for a city as an over-qualified librarian trying to bring something that people in that town needed. While they were telling us that there was no money to keep our doors open, they were paying some half-witted lawyer lady $80,000 for part time work, some of which she was allowed to use to keep up her practice. One example, true, but hardly unusual.

The Detroit School board was helped on it's way to bankruptcy by the hiring of a flock of such folks, who did little more than make the financial picture a little darker.

We need a middle class, but one with the education, concerns, values of an earlier age. Yuppies are helping to bankrupt this country, as much as those on top; a lot of them do precious little but suck up.

If Molly wants to complain about something, why doesn't she complain about the fact that in a earlier age, the fifties, the corporations paid in taxes approximately 35% of Federal Income. Now that figure is more like slightly over 6%. Now there's a rip-off work discussing.

RW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh those poor yuppies Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Oh those poor yuppies Posted by: bbugs
Here's the really grim view that no one wants to read
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 12, 2005 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish I had wealth enough to leave the US when it becomes necessary. As with global capitalism, the rich are hedged against economic recession and depression in the US or any other one country. They learned a lesson from Latin America where the rich made more money with inflation rates of 100-200% while the number of folks at the bottom surged.

I keep reading that the year to watch out for is 2006. Without a turn-around in congressional leadership, a continuation of our current policies will begin to hit the wall then. At the first sign of instability in the US, our lenders will begin to bail. It's been coming for a long time, so the Repugs have taken every opportunity to protect themselves by the largest transfer of wealth to the rich in our nation's history.

If you won't believe it until you see it, just hang around and continue to deny what's happening. It's not that we could not prevent it still. It's that we have elected leaders whose self-interest can afford to suffer a bit of decline in US assets, as there will still be plenty for them, at the moment spread around the globe. That's what "hedge" means.

Then again some cynics have said we don't really need legislators, since they always make a mess of things. That is being tested right now, since the current administration has no program, no vision, no popular support. They do, however, have the people to block what needs to be done.

So nitpick Molly all you want. But don't forget she tried to warn us. Is it really optimism to say, "What? Me Worry?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep spreading the word....
Posted by: Cindy on Jun 13, 2005 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This information needs to be presented ad nauseum through every media possible. Until people, Democrats, Republicans and Independents get that this administration cares NOTHING for them and is working in opposition to the best interests of all but the very rich, this will not be stopped. Too many people continue to be clueless and/or in total denial that they are working against their own, their children's and all future generations' interests and welfare by supporting this administration and their policies. The terrorism we have to fear is being perpetrated against us by this government and their corporate backers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The faulty, selfish, non-reasoning of the brainwashed capitalist mind
Posted by: zorro on Jun 13, 2005 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, socialism is not communism. Corporate- rich thrive on welfare--what do you think corporate bail outs and subsidies are? This includes weapons industries (weapons of mass destruction---does your god advocate those?)The Weapons industries dominate the infrastructure of your precious America (or wherever you practce being capitlaist). Corporations have as much, or more rights than human beings. We go to war now, and always have for capitlaist reasons, for the hyper-rich, and every soldier is a pawn of corporate interests. Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Unholy Bible was constructed, edited, and spun by Roman hyper-rich elites some 200 years after they murdered a liberal activist who told people to give the shirt off your back if somebody asks; who told his followers to give away everything they owned. You could compare him in many ways to Martin Luther King (also assasinated by capitalists.) Jesus notes many places in your bible that merchants are very, very bad and the source for the apocalypse. So jesus was an intelligent liberal who told people to be nice to each other:a socialist, a communist, a liberal, a treehugger...and he would never ever support a war or shop at Walmart. Furthermore, bible is not a history book: but equivalent to Fox news/CNN...only American media is a far more callous, grotesque, and vulgar nazism...I could go on all day exposing your contradictions and anti-human capitalism, but I will just say this: The corporate-rich, bloody well do make money with slavery--outsourcing is pretty close to slavery and corporate prisons are filled to capacity with slave workers, some of them locked up for life for petty crimes, forced to manufacture goods; the rich are known to confine immigrant slaves whom they threaten with deportation. I've lived abroad in Europe for many years and have experienced socialist culture and economics,and I'll say this:very little crime, worst is hooliganism;quality of life, intelligence, health--all profoundly greater than in America. Why do you think ownership of possessions has anything at all to do with a decent moral society? Over-consumption is destroying the evironment-- the air you breathe; stimulates war; and zealusly increases poverty. Lethal Pharmaceuticals, and poisonous chemicals in your food do voting in Washington, not citizens. They profit off misery, death, sickness, and tastless, highly-concentrated poisonous food. I wonder have you ever heard of free trade?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did we fiddle while democracy burned?
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Jun 14, 2005 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep coming back to the conclusion that in a way, we brought all this on ourselves. (By "we" I mean the majority of us who voted for Reagan in the '80's.) We allowed that man to convince us that poverty was a vice. We allowed him, for example, to close down state-run institutions and turn thousands of poor, lost, schizophrenic souls out on the street. I often think maybe that's the exact moment that America lost its heart. For decades, we've allowed our elected representatives to be increasingly at the disposal of the highest-bidding lobbyists. We knew it was happening. Where was our outrage? Maybe Bush and his thugs turning over what's left of our democracy to their corporate billionaire buddies is just the logical outcome of the mean-spiritedness we bought into as "Reaganomics"--and what's trickling down is slow, insidious destitution for everybody but the super-rich tricklers, who'll begrudge us even the crumbs from their tables.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement