A lot of liberal bloggers are drooling over the We Are the 99 Percent blog that is associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement. I actually find the blog pretty annoying. Partly that’s because because it is so heavy on complaints from people with college (and even postgraduate) degrees, a group that certainly is not bearing the brunt of the economic downturn. But the bigger problem is that the blog is based on a premise that is unhealthy not just for the left but for our political discourse as a whole.
The 99th percentile of Americans, by income, starts with households earning incomes of $593,000. The “We Are the 99 percent” branding puts somebody making $500,000 per year on the oppressed-and-downtrodden side of the wage divide. Indeed, “99 percent” is so expansive a designation that it includes most of the bankers working on Wall Street.
There is an obsession on the left—fueled by Barack Obama’s incompatible twin efforts to close an enormous budget gap and hold families making less than $250,000 per year harmless from tax increases—with soaking the super-rich. But if you truly believe that the government needs more revenue to provide valuable services, you need to look where the money is, and much of that’s in the top quintile (households making over $111,000) but outside the top 1 percent.
Obama’s campaign promise has boxed him in on tax policy, leaving him talking about the need for tax revenue but only able to propose gimmicky soak-the-rich taxes that would do outsized economic damage relative to the revenue they raise, and are political nonstarters in the Republican House. There’s been a lot of criticism of Republicans running away from tax reform proposals like Bowles-Simpson because they include net tax increases, but the President also shied away from that plan, perhaps because it would have raised taxes on many filers earning less than $250,000.
Now, even the far left seems to be endorsing the idea that we can pay for government without touching the poor, the middle class, or even people who are, quite frankly, rich—just not super-rich. If government does valuable and important things, and can’t afford to pay for them with our current tax code, why has it become a consensus view that the vast majority of Americans should get a pass on paying more?
I don’t mean to encourage the Occupy Wall Street protesters to shift their class-warfare target and aim lower. But I do think further reinforcement of the idea that we can make everything better by taking more money from a small elite of super-rich people is unhealthy regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum.
I ultimately want a deal along the lines of Bowles-Simpson—something that will reform entitlements and restrain spending growth while raising federal revenues to something like 21 percent of GDP—and to do that, we’ll have to raise taxes on more than just the super-rich. (I was very glad to see Chris Christie endorse the plan in his Reagan Library speech last week.) If you’re to my left and want more government spending than I do, it’s even more important to understand that a broad-based tax increase will be necessary. And if you’re to my right, you certainly should want to puncture the idea that Millionaire’s Taxes are an easy fix to our fiscal problems.
These idiots do not speak for me, nor anywhere near 99% of the population.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey do not speak for me, either!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI go to a small university full-time, and through a small education savings plan set up by my grandparents, work, and scholarships I am only seven hundred dollars in debt. While going to school full-time, I work 30 hours a week in retail and thus do not need a line of credit to live. I own a car that I maintain well, and for that it doesn't cost too much to keep on the road. I plan to finish my undergraduate studies in three years with as little debt as possible, then go to law school rather than mastering in Feminism in Nineteenth-Century Swiss Literature. My income allows me to buy beer or new clothes when desired. My parents work hard but earn under $90 000 a year combined. I am the... 1%?
I think I'm doing it wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo far you're doing well, but unless you plan to be in the top third of a Tier 1 law school, you are doing it VERY wrong -- you might as well get that PhD in Stereotypical Left-Wing Studies if you think law school is the path to prosperity.
This is our point - if you think its only humanities grad students that are feeling the pain, then you're relying more on old political prejudices than actual evidence. Its tough for college students, period, not just for people who study subjects hated by conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe hurt is coming from the economic policies of the obammer admin. Ask yourself why anyone would be hiring during this time. Businesses are businesses, they need to make money first before they can hire people. You hire someone because the extra productivity of that person overshadows how much he/she is being paid. If nothing had been done when the "economic crisis" hit, we would be in a better place today. Weve spent 4 and a half trillion in obamas time trying to save jobs that probably shouldnt exist anymore. Half of that money could have been used to help people affected. Weve got to learn to adress the symptoms, not kill the host.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait until you have to start paying law school tuition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt least on the first page of entries on "We Are the 99 Percent" there was no mention of raising taxes on the ultra rich. This is not to say that this is one of a range of policy options that most of them will agree with, but you are projecting and conflating. You seem to be looking for an excuse to air your critique of Obama's tax policy and to dismantle an lefty strawman who believes that raising the top marginal rate on millionaires will fix everything. No one on the left believes that returning the the top marginal rate to 39.someoddpercent will solve all our problems. On the other hand, I think it could be fairly said that there are those on the right who think it would lead to economic ruin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's the thing... a great number of Americans can no longer live what we used to call a middle class life. It dosen't matter how educated or hard working you are...the opportunities for employement at the middle class level are scarce. Without a middle class you don't get the spending that used to fuel the economy. It's a different economic world out there. EVERYONE is going to pay a price!
We need to speak more truth and spout less political dogma. You can cut hairs about who is really poor and who should really pay more taxes. Again, we will all pay... Government vs. free market like religion vs. science are false constructs that obstruct real solutions. Move beyond that and get creative. Or wait for the time when the truely desparate become the majority and rebel. Our choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe I haven't spent enough time reading the 99percent blog, but I'm a bit mystified by what could be "annoying" about people sharing stories of the genuine suffering they're going through. I think it's totally fair to criticize the blog (and perhaps the protests too) as insufficiently diverse, but I don't see how the educational attainment of people in poverty delegitimizes their suffering.
Second, it seems to me that you're conflating two groups that don't actually have much to do with each other. Unless I'm missing something (and please correct me if I'm wrong), OWS has not made taxation a central issue. Just because that's a Dem tax plan doesn't mean the protestors embrace it. On the contrary, there's an enormous amount that the federal government does to shape our economy that has nothing to do with taxes, and many of those policies do specifically benefit the top 1%, or .1%, or sometimes even the top .01%. As Hacker and Pierson get into at length in Winner Take All Politics, federal regulations (and the lack thereof) do a lot to enhance wealth creation among the very very rich.
We may need a broader-based tax system, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for class warfare on many other issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConsidering the people who posted pictures and their sob stories on the 99 site I think it was expecting too much for them to do the calculation you did. ***sarcasm on**Math is too hard so that is why I have MFA degree***sarcasm off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMostly white, mostly educated and mostly wanting better pay, job security and health care.
Not exactly a radical revolution and certainly something a smart politician should be able to turn into a leadership issue.
Taking issue with the accuracy of the brand ("we are the 99%" is brilliant, let's face it), put you in the position of kicking the down and out unemployed nurse with MS.
Who would do that, and more important, why? What time honored values are you defending?
OWS can maintain traction because of that, even if it's adherents don't have plans or viable solutions.
When someone is crying you can help them or ignore them. The severity of the injury is secondary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome people are under the illusion that the top 1% can subsidize everyone. I say that it is very unlikely than Government can subsidized anyone above the median. You can certainly subsidize poor and sure we should but any attempt to subsidize the median is doomed. This means that it is foolish to pay higher earners more SS than low earners. It also means that when you need to realize that most will pay every penny for their medicare coverage and so should be interesting cost control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If government does valuable and important things, and can’t afford to pay for them with our current tax code, why has it become a consensus view that the vast majority of Americans should get a pass on paying more?"
because "the vast majority of Americans" are making less than they were 20 years ago, while only a small number (albeit more than the top 1%) are making more while paying lower tax rates. tortuous logic, I know, but then it's a craaazyy world we live in.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait... Are they talking about incomes, or wealth?
Slate quotes Edward Wolff as saying the top 1% hold about a third of America's wealth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe protestors should get out their magic markers and change their signs to "We are the 95%"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think there is a mistaken assumption in this post: the argument of the OccupyWallStreet protesters is not that we should close the budget gap by taxing the upper 1% income bracket. It's that the richest 1% of Americans hold an outsized influence on politics in this country, and the policies that they encourage - through lobbying, campaign donations, interest group advertising, etc - have strong negative consequences for the other 99%.
We don't want to increase the taxes on this group (although that would likely do some good); we want to decrease their influence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDanielH is absolutely right. That the problem is about social and political influence and not tax policy.
Josh Barro is absolutely right that talking about "The 99%" as a victimized group shows a blatant disregard for simple facts about American income distribution and a misunderstanding of who's been victimized by the economic downturn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this was true they would be protesting in Washington, DC. This is nothing but a political operation by allies of the President so they won't do anything to bring attention to his (or any President's) connections to Wall Street.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's called Occupy DC. And it's already come to a White House near you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If government does valuable and important things"
There's the flaw in your entire argument right there, you beg the question of the value of all that government does.
It is perfectly reasonable to argue that most of what government does is NOT valuable and important and therefore taxes on everyone should be lowered and government's scope decreased.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse