Social Darwinism, the end of equality and class warfare. Thread #2

[prolesunited]

I'm starting a new thread at the request of RainDog because the other one got so hard to load. :-)

Here's the original thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=823512&mesg_id=823512

Please continue the discussion here. Feel free to lift excerpts from the original thread to provide context. I have some new links to post in awhile as well.

[prolesunited]

1. Let's address this issue

Muddleoftheroad  (1000+ posts)

Sat Dec-06-03 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #287

290. Workers do have options
If you have a valuable skill, you can shop it around to another employer or go off on your own. If you don't, why should an employer pay more than what that skill is worth?

[prolesunited]

2. Cheap labor conservatives

If the wages are purposefully driven down in a particular field, it doesn't matter what your skill set is you are NOT going to be able to shop yourself around if an employer can get a person with the same skills at a cheaper price.

From Conceptual Guerilla:

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".

Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".

Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.

Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/beattherightinthree.htm



For worker's wages, it is a race to the bottom, not the top. Who determines value of work? Certainly not the workers.

A RALLYING CRY FOR THE LEFT: "DOWN WITH 'CORPORATE FEUDALISM'

Because that is exactly what the conservative is talking about. Feudalism -- the original version -- divided control of the land of a nation among a noble elite. A handful of such elites governed as landlords over a peasantry who owned nothing "but their bellies", but worked in service to the lord of the manor. Feudal serfs were "bound to the land" and considered an "appurtenance" to the land, like its streams, timber and minerals. Not unlike today's industrial workforce, they were nothing more than assets to be exploited. "Freedom" was for "freed men" or "gentlemen" as they came to be known. It wasn't -- and isn't -- for serfs.

Today's conservative sees things much the same way. His corporate neo-feudalism is about a new world of "privitized tyranny". He is talking about a world where the government is the agent for private corporate power. The "public good"or "public interest" have no place in this new world of "corporate feudalism". Private ambition, private profit, private fortunes, and of course "pivate property" are the only legitimate concerns of government. Even the uses of the US military have been subverted to the uses of "corporate feudalism". What else is the coming "oil war" but a war to allow the US to distribute the oil wealth of Iraq to private oil companies to exploit for profit? Do you really believe that the US government is going to establish any sort of democracy that doesn't "know its place"? In fact, you can look around the third world and see a consistent pattern. American foreign policy makers talk about "democracy" but what they set up are corporate client states.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/corporatefeudalism.htm

[Nikia]

3. People are often not paid what they're worth

I'd like to voice my point again that most positions, especially higher paid jobs, are not advertised anywhere. A person without connections has a big disadvantage in the job market. Making connections may be a valuable skill, but it is not necessary for performing a technical skill well. A talented person may be making far less than the rate they deserve simply because they cannot get interviews with the right people. Certain people may be unfairly discriminated against in with both traditional protected groups and other criteria such as appearance, residence, and mannerisms. We must also remember that employer recommndations, especially for skilled positions, are taken into account and some employers may lie to prevent an employee from getting a job with a competitor. As far as starting ones own business, not everyone has the tools, skills, or money for the business aspect of their skill.

[DjTj]

7. "What they're Worth"

is a fungible concept.

Capitalism doesn't pay people based on what they CAN do, it pays by what a person actually DOES. When you're hiring someone, there's no way to predict the future, so decisions will necessarily be based on subjective factors, which may be based on connections or "unfair discrimination".

Unfortunately, I'm just more likely to hire someone whom my friend says is a good worker and it's going to be very hard for anyone to prove that someone else is better.

It might feel more *fair* if we had some sort of massive testing system that could identify an objective standard for who is most qualified. It might feel more *fair* if we implemented a complete meritocracy, but I personally feel better knowing that there are *people* making choices in the hiring process.

[RainDog]

11. First-hand knowledge of this

I cannot move more than 50 miles from where I live now because I agreed to share custody for my children's sake...tho I could have absolutely have had sole custody.

But people do not make every decision based upon economics, nor should they.

...so here is my experience with not what you know but who-

I am a Phi Beta Kappa English major. I won three awards for my work, including best senior honors thesis based upon research.

Another award was a college of arts and sciences award...the entire arts and sciences depts of a U...for a comination of research and video.

In addition, I had an NEA grant in media for other work.

I had a portfolio of freelance articles from different publications after my U work.

However, I could not even get an INTERVIEW with the editor of my local newspaper for an entry level position. I applied every time there was a opening listed.

Then, I met an editor of a section of the paper through a mutual friend. This person hired me to do freelance for the same paper
without ever looking at my samples, my vita...nothing.

I applied for every position which was ever listed in my paper for someone with my qualifications for months and months and NEVER was I ever called for an interview.

When my ex was in grad school, I supervised seven tellers in the vault of the second-largest bank in the large city where I was living.

I applied for a job as a teller at a bank...not because I wanted to do that job, but because I could not even get an interview for any other job.

Again, I could not get that job...yet, I know people who have since been hired by that bank who are far, far less qualified than me...who had no qualifications in that area at all, in fact.

People on this board have met me. I am not an unpleasant person. I practice more than basic hygiene and I am not book smart but people stupid.

I took a job, finally, at a bookstore, simply to overcome the depression of apparently not being worth anything to anyone around here.

At that job, I was paid minimum wage, which is so low that one month of salary cannot even pay for a living space for a parent with two children.

I was not allowed to take any paid breaks. I could take a break for lunch, or a five minute break for this or that...but not on the clock.

But after I started working there I also realized I could learn how to run this biz...which I did. Running such a biz is, in fact, easy compared to any other skills I have ever acquired.

I am in a position to be able to start a biz based on what I was doing, plus other things that are not now being done where I am. I know people who are interested in the concept because they have the skills to contribute to make it work.

None of us has the money, however. --the person who owns the place I worked for inherited it, btw. That person has no idea about how to manage employees and, in fact, had to ask me yesterday how to handle a situation which was costing her money because of low morale and thus low productivity. SHE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A BASIC EMPLOYEE ISSUE!!! ---and I told her how to handle it.

I gave my notice for my job and I'm going back to school....simply because I have no health insurance and need some. My boss wants me to still work for her as a buyer. I know she will not expect to pay me anywhere near an equitable salary for this, though.

She wants me to do this because I am more qualified than she is to run her business.

There is no honest corelation that I have seen between a person's ability to do a job and their salary or lack of.

[prolesunited]

15. Excellent firsthand illustration

of how skills and knowledge often are totally unrelated to pay. BTW, I'm sure you will come out on top in this situation.

Also, entire fields, particularly those dominated by women, are undervalued when it comes to pay. A prime example is day-care employees. We say we value children, yet we pay child-care workers minimum wage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Your experience

Your situation is not at all surprising to me. I have hired probably over 100 people in my career from time to time, and many of them in journalism when I was an editor.

OK, I don't know what local newspaper you live near, but if you give more specifics, I can be more helpful. Nevertheless, editors don't give a crap about Phi Beta Kappa English or college awards.

Journalism is not really a profession based on education, it's based on work experience. And freelance doesn't really count either. If you had interned at a newspaper or worked in a journalism program that focused on journalistic writing, those would have helped.

Now, you have applied at other jobs and those aren't generally happening either. It might be your resume (feel free to PM me, and I'd be happy to take a look) or it might be your cover letter (ditto) or you might just appear overqualified. No employer wants to hire someone who is overqualified because they are likely to leave as soon as they can.

Now, you talk about starting a bookstore. To be honest, a bookstore is a business that doesn't generate a ton of profit and has major Internet competition. So you are unlikely to find venture capital money to start such an operation.

Yes, you might now have the skills to make your business go, but investors want a big return.

OK, now a question. Your boss still wants you to work for her as a buyer. Why not ask for the moon? If she wants you there and you have all these skills she lacks, why not make you a partner?

[RainDog]

21. gee thanks so much...

but, no thanks.

all of your advice is so greatly appreciated. you apparently ignored the gist of the post, which is that I DID work for that same paper after I met one of the editors in a social situation...I could still work for them, and could have, and made plans to also work for another editor in another section, but he tried to renege on the payment he had made for my work, and they already didn't pay well, and I decided to take the bookstore day job.

But when TWO EDITORS wanted me to write for them, it had

NOTHING to do with me being overqualified or Phi Beta Kappa or not.

NOTHING to do with me having interned or not.

my freelance WAS journalistic-style writing, and I could demonstrate, through them, the ability to do the same.

You are being so stubbornly blind on this topic you amaze me and totally discredit yourself with me at the same time.

I do not need help with my cover letter or my resume, thank you.
I was offered other jobs in other cities based upon that resume, but I couldn't take them when I decided it was in the best interests of my children to remain with both parents.

I will not go into it the issue further, but my boss is extremely dysfunctional and she will not go in as partners, I already know, and she will not pay me anything other than a token wage to do what she wants me to do. I absolutely know this. You make me laugh to assume you can "solve" these issues by your facile suggestions.

As far as a bookstore, yes, I know that 20% growth is very good, and it's not one of the great widget industries. What I have in mind in not simply that, anyway.

But you know, sometimes making a shitload of money isn't the first priority...and it's disgusting to me that so many Americans don't care what they do as long as they make a lot of money.

How soul dead can you be? How life destroying can this country be to promote such a vision of the value of the ways in which people spend the majority of their waking hours?

No, I am going back to school. I plan to put myself into a position to leave this country, not just this city, whether or not I have agreed to joint custody, if Bush wins a second term because I do not want my children to grow up in a fascist and hateful America.

I've already discussed this with my ex, in fact.

Thank you for your attempt to demean my situation by "explaining it all away." You have a future as a Bush press secretary, with that attitude.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. I didn't deny or ignore anything

I know you did work for them, but they are one paper. You seem at a career crossroads and might consider that route again. I was trying to help.

I am sorry you really don't seem to understand how newspapers work. And, given your attitude, I am not likely to bother trying to convince you that you don't.

As for the resume and cover letter. I've never met anyone, myself included, who doesn't need help with both. That's why there is a whole industry out there doing it. However, I have done such work for many, many years and was trying to offer that to you, again because you seemed like you needed it. NOT for my benefit.

I was actually trying to help, but again given your attitude, I think we get to the heart of the matter of your career.

I am not soul dead and I don't make all my career decisions based on cash. Most venture capital investors do however. If you don't have cash (you said so) to start a business, you need someone who does have it.

[RainDog]

25. LOL

you are so wrong, and you made me angry, and THAT'S the problem?

You have no idea what you are talking about, and that's why I do not want your advice.

In order to allow this post to remain, I am controlling my words and not saying the expletives that are raging in my brain at this time.

But let me just say that I will no longer respond to you nor will I be aware if you have responded to me or anyone else.

I read all the posts you made throughout this thread and you are telling ME that I have an attitude and a problem with seeing when people are trying to tell me something for my own good????

Of course, you cannot understand my frustration because you cannot know my situation. But believe me, if an editor never even MET me...how could you say my attitude is a problem when editors who DID meet me wanted to work with me, liked my work, got compliments on my work from readers, then there were other editors who wanted to work with me, but when one offered me one amount of payment but then wanted to offer me less because he found out I had worked for less before...

oh yes, that is all my problem.

expletive, expletive you expletive expletive.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Overreaction

You act like I have never been down on my luck or poor and can't grasp what you are going through. As a result, you took a genuine offer of help and took offense at it.

Personally, I hate to see anybody having a hard time finding a job. Every single time I have seen a post like that at DU, I have made a point of trying to help. In the other cases, it went, shall we say, better. Perhaps you disliked my posts so much in this thread that you allowed that to color the offer. If so, I am sorry for you.

As for the last part, if you think attitude doesn't show in what you write -- including cover letters, resume, etc. -- then you really need to go back to those English classes.

[camero]

27. We're not acting like that at all

We're calling you out as a hypocrite. You say that you are poor and for the poor, but you constantly call for the disparity of wealth to remain the same and that people should be able to get money without working for it.

Ironic that you are poor but brag about your ability to hire and fire people. I have never had that power but I did have the power to supervise people and delegate. And the biggest motivator for them was my own work. I showed them that I was just as willing to get my hands dirty as they were. It also made my job much easier because I didn't have to go to my boss and say that somebody wasn't pulling thier weight.

Seems like you like power even more than money, both corrupting influences.

[prolesunited]

29. No, your offer was condescending

and the whole tone of your post implied that RainDog was at fault. She stated her credentials and were extremely dismissive of all of her accomplishments. After that, did you honestly think she would turn to you for help. What? So you could discourage her some more?

But, of course, everyone who finds themselves in bad circumstances are the cause of their own misfortune because that appears to be the premise upon which you base your world view. Someone's hand is tied behind their back and then they are criticized for not winning the fight.

I, too, believe in personal responsibility but I also understand that the deck really is stacked against some people and segments of society. The corporate and societal structure is constructed to maintain wealth and class distinctions. Sure, there is some room for upward mobility and every once in awhile we have the stellar rags to riches story to inspire everyone to keep struggling. Those who break through this limiting structure are the exception rather than the rule.

I have personally met RainDog and she does not have an "attitude" as you have suggested. A really don't care for intellectually dishonest debating tactics that some people engage in around here, especially when it comes to deliberately tweaking others. When they respond with justified defensiveness and anger, they are then chastised or mocked.

Thus, the issue is obscured and we don't focus on the matter at hand, rather the personality or attitude of the poster with whom there is a disagreement becomes the issue. I think many here can see through such obvious ploys.

You don't know anything of her life and what personal challenges that she has had to face. I certainly don't think it is fair for you to pass judgment on her based on an interaction with you on a message board. I am her friend, and although you may think that clouds my judgment, I certainly am in a much better position to assess her attitude than you. RainDog is very intelligent, quite articulate, friendly and engaging.

Perhaps it would be best and certainly more productive to stick to the topics were are discussing rather than sidetrack the discussion with smears on those who are posting within the thread.

[Isome]

17. more likely to hire someone whom my friend says is a good worker ...

That's all the good ol' boys do too! They hire people they like, people that know people they know, people who have been vouched for by their network of friends. If, in the process they don't hire women or people who aren't caucasian that's okay. Right? It seems harmless enough.

People are often not paid for what they actually do. Nurses, teachers, child care workers, lower to mid-level bank employees, etc., are paid low wages considering the importance of what they do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Of course people hire someone they know

As an former boss (current job doesn't require it), I can tell you that hiring an employee who is recommended by another good employee is great. In my experience, it seldom fails.

Why? Because, good workers generally hang out with good workers first off. Next, the new employee knows (and you make this clear if he/she doesn't) that they were recommended for this job by X. If they do well, it will naturally reflect well on X. If they do poorly, that too will reflect on X.

I'm sorry, I don't bank teller jobs the same as you do. I've seen high school graduates move right into teller spots without a problem. If you do basic math and have a nice personality, you can be a teller.

[Isome]

31. ...the muddled comprehension continues...

It's fine to hire those you know or who were recommended to you. Problems arise when that criteria wins out above all others, then it becomes cronyism.

Bank tellers and other low to mid-level employees are well-known for being low paid, despite their trusted positions. Part of the point made was about salary, not opportunity... wages / salary / pay / income earned!

[camero]

34. It is also a skill, as much as he denies it

Check what your teller is doing the next time you go to the bank. They have to operate computers in order to bring up account information and print out receipts. Not exactly a simple task for someone without training. Which would require at least trade school education, which are exactly the kinds of things getting cut in public education.

So by debasing these workers, we are screwing ourselves.

[RainDog]

4. here's the post that started the thread, plus two

...and I'll post my "greatest hits" links...and sorry I cannot attribute everyone for their information and contribution...
-----------------

prolesunited Thu Dec-04-03 10:40 AM
Original message

Social Darwinism, the end of equality and class warfare. Let's discuss.

After reading "The End of Equality" in the November/December issue of Mother Jones, I was struck by a number of points that were made. (Sorry, no link available.)

The article addressed the growing disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S.

• The top 1 percent now own 38 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 40 percent own 1 percent.

• The richest 3 million Americans put together are nearly 40 times richer than 113 million of the rest of us.

• Current ratio of CEO to worker pay is 500 to 1.

• The five heirs of WalMart stand to inherit $19 billion apiece tax-free while full-time employees make $8 an hour.

The author asserts, "Great gaps in wealth are not only morally repellent, but incompatible with the social cohesion a healthy democracy requires." <-- Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why?

Pervading American society is the belief that we make our own fate and everyone starts our with an equal opportunity. True or false?

Is it possible to achieve some (not complete) semblance of economic leveling without passing measures that would "punish the rich and reward the poor simply to make things more equal"?
If we allow economic inequality because we believe in social equality — the basic fairness of the race — is it not the government's responsibility to make sure the race actually IS fair?

I what ways is the race to the top not fair? What role, if any, should government play?

Lots to digest here. I would love to have the input of many DUers on this one — from the stalwart capitalists to the idealistic socialists.

-------------
plus one:

five ways you can join in the fight to rein in runaway CEO pay. Keep in mind that if the boss who is overpaid is your boss, there may be certain risks involved in challenging his or her behavior.

You should evaluate those risks and then decide what to do.
• Get inside the board room
• Use your shareholder clout
• Rally your co-workers and the community
• Take it to the IRS
• Call on the regulators

Details of each point here:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/what2do/

Cool link to paywatch database there as well

Many countries in Europe have taken a much more progressive on this issue, with both the government and the unions taking an active role in curbing skyrocketing pay. The result is the pay disparity is far less between the CEO and the average worker.
I don't have time to research the details on what is taking place in Europe, but perhaps our overseas posters would be able to lend their perspective here.

------------------

plus two

Dynasties!
MAYBE IT'S TIME for a new set of Fourth of July orations. Only at first blush is there silliness to the idea of the United States--the nation of the Minutemen, John and Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson--becoming a hereditary economic aristocracy. When you think about it, there is evidence for serious concern.

More than a decade ago, the United States passed France to have the highest inequality ratios of any major Western nation. More and more of the country's richest clans have been setting up family offices, captive trust companies and other devices to manage and entrench their swelling fortunes. The elimination of the inheritance tax being sought by the Bush Administration will only make that entrenchment easier.

Politically, we already have a dynasty at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: the first son ever to take the presidency just eight years after it was held by his father, with the same party label. This dynasticism also has its economic side: both Bushes, père et fils, having been closely involved with the rise of Enron, another first for a presidential family, more on which shortly.

http://www.inequality.org/dynasties2.html

Why America's plutocrats gobble up $1,500 hot dogs
Nearly half the benefits of Mr. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 went to the richest 1%, while 60% of this year's cuts will go to taxpayers with incomes of more than $100,000, according to the tax policy center run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution in Washington. Mr. Bush also fought hard to repeal an inheritance tax that affected only the wealthiest 2%, as well as cutting capital gains tax and trying to abolish the tax on dividends.

The Bush cabinet also stands out for its big money background. Every member is a millionaire and, the Center for Public Integrity says, its total net worth is more than 10 times that of the Clinton cabinet. President Bush may not be the cause of America's unequal society, but the members of his administration arguably personify a new plutocracy. In the view of Kevin Phillips, an economic historian and the author of a history of America's rich, “Wealth and Democracy,” you have to go back more than 100 years to find an era when big money and government were in such a tight embrace.

"It's the second plutocracy after the gilded age," Mr. Phillips said. "Laissez-faire is a pretence. Government power and preferment have been used by the rich, not shunned. As wealth concentration grows, especially near the crest of a drawn-out boom, so has upper-bracket control of politics and its ability to shape its own preferment."

http://www.inequality.org/champions2.html

[teryang]

12. Love Kevin Phillips on Dynasties

<Let's hope Americans do not also allow political and economic inheritance to displace democracy.>

It has already happened. I like the way he soft pedals his message with simple historical comparisons and fact. He leaves open the possibility that somehow it can be changed.

My personal view is that we should go back to something like the 1979 progressive tax code to correct the imbalances. Or one could simply elimate offshore tax shelter schemes and return corporate income tax revenues to the national balance sheet from whence they have been allowed to disappear by their paid stooges in Congress. Either of these measures would restore balance and integrity to government and financial markets.

But the problem is that the tax laws are defacto reflections of the relative power of groups in our society. Yet, organizations, grass roots, populist, progressive, policy and interest groups etc., can change the power equation and it doesn't require a one to one ratio of available fiscal resources to take on the corporate fat cats. I think this is one of strengths in the Dean campaign. His organizing principles are purely political and cost effective.

A lot of progressive interest groups get bogged down in the Federal courts where financial disadvantage simply bogs down the impetus for change. Sometimes though you have to use the courts its the only way for one reason or another. Then you know you are in for a fight which favors the rich.

Obviously advertising and other media strategies are most effective. The unit cost is lowest and they have the most impact. Thst is why the media whore corporate propaganda and censorship syndrome is so harmful to democracy. Under the influence of corporate monopoly media instead of a "free press," the listing ship of state is unable to self right before sinking into plutocracy, corruption, war and despotism.

[RainDog]

5. links to support an estate tax, and posts

Estate tax link base

http://www.arktimes.com/030110coverstorya.html
"The argument for repealing estate taxes has been that the tax often forced people who inherited family farms and busineses to sell the farms and businesses in order to pay the tax, but there is almost no record of that happening. Farms and family businesses make up less than 3 percent of the estate tax filings in the United States. Estate taxes on family farms and businesses can be stretched out over 14 years."

---------

"Keep in mind that the inheritance tax, even before President Bush took office, was paid by fewer than 2 percent of all estates. Reforms then in progress would have further narrowed its reach by exempting estates of up to $1 million ($2 million for couples.) Farmers? During the debate in 2001, the American Farm Bureau couldn't cite a single family farm lost to the estate tax.

Shopkeepers? Turns out small business owners pay less than 1 percent of all estate taxes.

No, the ones with a big stake here are the fortunate 50,000--the tiny fraction of U.S. families who count their wealth in eight figures or more."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0311210415nov21,1,623146.story?coll=chi-printcommentary-hed
-------------

From United for a Fair Economy\'s Myth vs. Fact regarding the Estate Tax...

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family businesses to close.
Fact: This issue has been wildly exaggerated. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business forms the majority of the estate. A recent Federal Reserve study found that the average small business is worth $702,566, well below the level at which estate taxes kick in. Virtually all small family businesses can be protected by simply raising estate tax exemption levels.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family farms to sell.

Fact: As with family businesses, this issue has been distorted. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.
---------------


Facts

* Farms —Only three of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.

* Businesses—Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business forms the majority of the estate. A recent Federal Reserve study found that the average small business is worth $702,566, well below the level at which estate taxes kick in. Virtually all small family businesses can be protected by simply raising estate tax exemption levels.
Pat Wolff, a D.C. lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau says,

"The government can take almost half of your belongings when you die." However he could not say how many families have actually been forced to sell off their farmland by the estate tax. His response to the question was, "We don't have those numbers and have never seen those numbers. All of our economic arguments are anecdotal."

------------

Here's some FACTS on the estate tax, thanks to United for a Fair Economy, to help set the record straight.
http://www.ufenet.org/estatetax/ETMythsFacts.html
-------------

The following is found at this site: http://www.ufenet.org/estatetax/ETMythsFacts.html

Myth: The estate tax is a “death tax.”

Fact: The estate tax is not a tax on death. It’s a tax on the transfer of large amounts of money. Ninety-eight percent of Americans who die pass their estate on to their heirs completely tax-free — in fact, they get a valuable tax break on capital gains. Zero estate tax is charged on assets left to a spouse or to charity.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family businesses to close.

Fact: This issue has been wildly exaggerated. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a family business forms the majority of the estate. A recent Federal Reserve study found that the average small business is worth $702,566, well below the level at which estate taxes kick in. Virtually all small family businesses can be protected by simply raising estate tax exemption levels.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family farms to sell.

Fact: As with family businesses, this issue has been distorted. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.

Myth: The estate tax is “double taxation.”

Fact: The phrase “double taxation” is a rhetorical device meant to confuse the issue. Money is taxed any number of times as it cycles through the economy, generally during transactions. Workers, for example, pay income, payroll, and sales taxes on their wages. What’s more, the bulk of the largest estates, which consist of unrealized capital gains, would never have been taxed were it not for the estate tax.

Myth: The estate tax “confiscates” over half the value of all estates.

Fact: For 98% of Americans, the estate tax takes away nothing. For the other 2%, the average effective tax rate is 19%.

Myth: The estate tax discourages work and inhibits capital formation.

Fact: There is no hard evidence that U.S. capital accumulation has been held back by the estate tax. There is evidence, however, that large inheritances do reduce work effort and saving among recipients.

Myth: The estate tax raises little revenue, so repealing it will have no effect.

Fact: In 2001, the estate tax raised $28.4 billion for the federal government. That’s about 7% of the non-military discretionary budget. Permanent repeal will cost at least $796 billion between 2012 and 2022. This will deprive the Treasury of resources that could be used to address pressing needs such as safeguarding Social Security, improving education, or extending prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Myth: The wealthiest Americans use tax shelters to completely avoid paying estate taxes.

Fact: Most estate tax revenue comes from the top 0.15% of Americans – the few thousand people each year with estates larger than $5 million. In 2000, an even smaller and wealthier group, the 549 people with estates greater than $20 million, paid almost a quarter of all estate taxes that year – for an average tax of $10.4 million per estate.

Myth: The estate tax doesn’t raise enough revenue to cover the cost of collecting it.

Fact: This staple of talk-radio shows is based on an imprecise guess made by a researcher back in 1987. It was based on faulty assumptions, and is easy to disprove. While the estate tax has raised about $28 billion in each of the last few years, the budget for the entire Internal Revenue Service amounts to only $8 billion a year.

Myth: The estate tax is unfair.

Fact: Unfair compared to what? Should revenue come from a tax on wages? Should it come from sales tax? Or should it also come from the estates of multi-millionaires? The estate tax is eminently fair. It is collected from those most able to pay, and it encourages the recycling of wealth through the non-profit sector. It limits the size of family dynasties that would otherwise distort our democracy and shrink economic opportunity for succeeding generations.

[prolesunited]

6. Thank you for wading through that thread

and pulling these points out.

[RainDog]

8. there's a lot worth reading in those posts

and I wanted to be able to refer to it all later.

the back and forth yes it is, no it isn't, unfortunately, takes up so much wattage that I didn't want the important posts to get lost.

thanks for starting the thread, and for the excellent posts.

[DjTj]

10. The Estate Tax is a misguided attempt to fix our tax system...

It's there because we haven't figured out how to tax the wealthy. When we taxed wages, the rich learned to keep their money in estates and live off their investments.

We tried to get around this problem by implementing capital gains, dividend taxes, and the estate tax, but these corrections make it extremely easy to cry, "double taxation!"

It gives the republicans a great campaign slogan and puts the democrats on the losing side of this debate.

Although they debunk these two myths with some averages and generalizations:

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family businesses to close.

Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family farms to sell.

...the problem is that the estate tax forces some family businesses to close and it forces some family farms to sell. All a republican congressman needs to do is find one these families and bring them on stage in a stump speech. Saying, "Well, that's just an exception" isn't going to sell...

The reason this happens is that the estate tax was implemented as simply a reaction to rich people's attempts to avoid our tax system. It attacks this problem but it is overbroad, taxing many people who aren't rich. And, many of the rich have found ways around it of course.

We're always going to have these problems because our tax system does not have a consistent philosophy. On one hand, we're committed to taxing "income" and on the other hand we have a desire to tax "wealth".

Unfortunately, Income != Wealth.

...The only solution I've seen to this problem is to radically alter our tax system to go after spending rather than income. What really divides a rich person from a poor person is how much money they *spend* each year on food and luxuries.

People who make $60k a year but are only spending $20k a year while trying to save for their children's education and their retirement are probably only buying things that they need. We shouldn't tax people who only have as much money as they need. On the other hand, people who spend millions out of their trust fund should be taxed at a high rate even though they may not be working at all. To avoid double taxation, we should tax when people spend because that's the best time to find out how much someone actually values their money and how much it is *equitable* to take.

[Isome]

16. Hold on a second...

Most money is taxed twice, sometimes three times, but let me be clear. Regarding the estate tax, it is not taxed twice. The person inheriting the money has NEVER been taxed for the unearned income. With regard to dividends, there are many times when that money has NOT been taxed at all.

.::.ITEP Link.::.

Texaco received $67.7 million tax refund check in 1998. Though it declared $182 million in profits, the giant oil company paid no corporate income tax.

"PepsiCo got $302 million from Washington. It, too, paid no corporate tax that year on $1.6 billion in profits."

Cisco Systems is considered one of the most valuable U.S. companies and even it paid no federal income taxes, though it earned $2.7 billion... net.

All of the above companies still paid DIVIDENDS to their shareholders, despite not paying taxes on the profits. When the shareholders are taxed, there's no DOUBLE in the equation.

According to the linked report, in 1998 41 companies that paid dividends to shareholders paid less than zero in taxes.

I don't see the estate tax as misguided. It's reasonable.

Though the comparison may sound crass, inheritances are like winning the lottery or gambling winnings, it's unearned income and it's rightly taxable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Estates are NOT unearned

Someone earned, you just don't like the idea that they dare give it to their family.

That's crap. That's why some people work hard their whole lives -- to pass down wealth for the future.

[camero]

28. The person that got the money handed to them

Did not earn that money. The person that died did.

[camero]

30. The best reason to tax estates

http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-00/09-20-00/a15op068.htm

Overlooked in this controversy is the best reason the estate tax should be retained, and it is cultural: Estate taxes keep the United States from turning into Europe.

For centuries, European culture and politics have been plagued by class hostilities centered on inherited wealth. Almost everyone in the traditional European aristocratic cohort received his or her financial position in life through inheritance. (Most Europeans nations enacted estate taxes in the postwar era, but they are easily evaded.) Europe's "idle rich" performed no productive labors and created no wealth. People who had to work resented that fiercely. The results for Europe have been sharp class hostility and sluggish economies.

Already, the arc of U.S. society is toward the creation of European-style wealth concentration, and that is disturbing enough. In 1976, the richest 1 percent of society held 21.8 percent of wealth. By 1983, it held 33.8 percent; today, it holds 38.5 percent of all wealth and the figure continues to escalate. In the coming two decades, many in the top 1 percent will die, and the deck will be reshuffled as the estate tax redistributes some of this accumulation. If the estate tax is repealed, the rate of wealth concentration will continue to accelerate.

I guess this is what you want us to become.

[Isome]

32. Inherited estates are NOT earned income.

Is that clearer? If I inherit my daddy's hard earned assests and cash, I didn't work for it, HE did. Please don't muddle up my posts with poor comprehension.

[JanMichael]

35. But muddling the issue is what "he" is all about.

That's perfectly obvious now. Facts, and Equitable Taxation, don't seem to matter to some people.

[prolesunited]

9. Some interesting graphs and statistical data

Among the industrialized nations, the U.S. has the highest concentration of individual wealth--roughly 3 times that of the No. 2 nation, Germany.
(UN Human Development Report, 1998)

And if it isn't evident that the problem is getting worse, take a look at these facts

Since the mid-1970s, the most fortunate one percent of households have doubled their share of the national wealth. They now hold more wealth than the bottom 90 percent of the population.
(NYU Economist Edward N. Wolf, Top Heavy)

In 2001, 16.3 percent of American children lived in poverty, a lower rate than 1993 (22.7 percent), but higher than the 1973 rate of 14.4 percent.
(U.S Census Bureau Current Population Survey: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov3.html/)

Nearly one quarter of all workers – more than 28 million in all -- earn less than $8.78 an hour, the amount needed to lift a family of four above the poverty line with full-time work (about $18,200 a year).
(Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America 2002-03, p. 355)

60 percent of U.S. workers say that if they were laid off, their savings are sufficient to maintain their current standard of living for a few months or less. Only 29 percent said they are able to save for the future. 40 percent say they earn enough to be comfortable, but not to save, while 27 percent said they earn only enough to get by, and 3 percent said they are unable to pay their bills.
(Fleet Bank, contact Rena DeSisto, 212-703-1961)

http://www.inequality.org/factsfr.html

[prolesunited]

13. Original thread

has been moved to Economics Forum so it doesn't get archived as quickly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=3080&mesg_id=3080

[Isome]

33. But, it's not solely an economic issue...

It's a SOCIAL issue. But I know things can drop quicky to archive status in GD.

[camero]

14. Thanks, Prolesunited

That thread was a classic. I should do more cut and paste but I'm teaching myself on the computer pretty much.

[bread_and_roses]

22. Look at those charts!

Thanks for posting them; everyone have this information. I am always amazed at the success the neo-cons have had in convincing ordinary wage-earners to have such tender regard for the fortunes of the rich. There surely is class warfare going on this country - the super-rich and corporations against the rest of us.

Interesting that this thread has around three hundred replies - an indication of interest I would think - but which of our candidates are addressing this issue? Dems have utterly failed to give ordinary workers/wage earners/the poor/working&middle class a language and frame of reference with which to understand the incredible transfer of wealth that has occurred.

[RainDog]

23. The era of America's greatest economic supremacy

was from the early 1950s until the late 1960s.

During this time, there were high income taxes, strong antitrust laws and also strong enforcement of those laws, and high levels of union membership.

The economic lies which have been promoted to the American people since Reagan took office will, it seems if history is any precedent, result in yet another need for a "new deal" rescue of capitalism after the looters have destroyed the economy.

How ironic that Republicans want to put Reagan on a dime and remove Roosevelt, when they have made that dime for worthless, while Roosevelt made that dime the rescue of our very country.

[prolesunited]

36. I guess it just depends on which side of the line

you are on when it comes to evaluating the economy. Even as bad as things are for most people right now, the rich are continuing to get richer. Reports indicate the high-end retailers are doing a booming business for the holiday season.

I think the irony inherent in wanting to change the dime flies over most people's heads. When are they going to wake up? I feel like we're the canaries but no-one is paying attention to us.