Reflecting on the life of my family, I realize how incredibly lucky we are. My children are doing well and making me proud every day. I love my wife. I stress about money, but we have enough to live comfortably. I have a great extended family (some so awesome that they even read this blog!) and warm and caring friends. In my talk I said:
So in some ways I think a Life Well Lived is one in which we’re grateful for all the good fortune we’ve hadAnd here's where I veer into the political. I read this today from David Frum. The post started by quoting a particularly hateful rant from Michelle Malkin about the 47%:
The question is not to deplore, but to understand. Where do emotions like these come from? How is it that so many who seem to be such golden winners of life's lottery manage to generate so much hatred, fear, and contempt for those who have fared less well? It would make an ugly kind of sense if such rage were expressed by those who had less against those who had more. But who stands at the highest window in the building to drop slop onto the heads of the unfortunates standing 10 or 12 stories below?Exactly. In a similar vein, we hear the Romneys talk about how hard they've worked to get what they have. Ann Romney famously explained that in graduate school they were forced to live off the meager income from some stock given to him by his father. It seems like Mitt and the many of the 1% are convinced that their enormous wealth is ironclad proof of their virtue. That's one of the things that's so striking about the secret Romney video- the audience of wealthy donors are all buying into the meme that "the 47%" are moochers living off the public trough. Some of us thought that the whole thing about how the "tipping point" is being reached and the poor are going to start voting for handouts from the rich was just a cynical argument for the rubes- but no! The plutocrats at that Romney fundraiser really believe it!
I think it was Ann Richards who said about George W. Bush: "Poor George! He was born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple". I think Mitt Romney also thinks he hit a triple- certainly he's trying to convince us all that he worked hard for all he had, and came from nothing. This from a guy whose father was president of an auto company!
Now I'm not quite as lucky financially as Mitt Romney. But I'm pretty damn lucky. Hell, I was born on 2nd base, a relative winner in the historical lottery. But at least I don't believe I hit a double.
Maybe one of the things that drives people to become filthy rich is that they're never satisfied with what they've got. But I think it's a little sad, never to be happy and grateful with what we've been given. We've all got problems- the Romney family is dealing with Ann's Multiple Sclerosis after all- but when you balance it all out, most people in the 1% have it incredibly good and getting better. Why are they so angry at the rest of us?
I'm not in the 1%, but I think you mischaracterize them. They're not necessarily angry at the masses or unaware of their fortunate lot in life. But there's something askew about a society in which nearly 50% do not contribute to the general revenues of the country. Reasonable people can debate the degree of progressivity in the tax code, but it doesn't seem right to have 47% not contributing at all for services they consume.
ReplyDeleteJat, I agree. Everyone has to have skin in the game. We are close to the tipping point. A point where it makes more sense for the un-enthusiastic masses to find a way to stay home and get a check. The evidence is obvious when you look at what Obama has done to make it easier to stay in bed on those rainy or snowy or hot or cold or cloudy days. It's a Country Killer but others on this Blog,,like it.
DeleteThe irony here is that the lower tax rates for the poor are a result of conservative policies, pushed by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan among others. And of course the Bush era tax cuts helped those at the bottom too, pushing many out of paying federal taxes entirely.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the Earned Income Tax Credit was to reward low-wage work by giving workers tax incentives to stay in low-wage jobs rather than go on welfare.
Think about it this way, JAT: the reason poor people don't pay income tax is because their wages are too low. We could mandate a higher minimum wage I guess, but I doubt you would support that. We could tax them a token amount I guess, but to someone making $9 an hour supporting a family, I'm not sure you could go low enough to be "token".
It's also important to remember that many of "the 47%" are retired people who paid into the system for many years. Many are also the temporarily unemployed, who will be back at work the next year. Many are young people not making much money yet, but who will be paying plenty eventually. The 47% number is very misleading- it implies an underclass that is much bigger than it really is.