Quote of the Day -- On Wealth Inequality and Inequity

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." --Bertrand Russell

Said so many years ago but still so applicable today. Hear this, Mr. Bezos? Waltons?

Quote of the Day -- On Fair, Living Wages

Humankind's Obscenity Of Private Property

I learned of this years ago and could not agree more. I didn't realize Rousseau was on to this, a Frenchman and from proper French society.

So many--most people, I think--don't get this. There would be no poverty nor need for it, if we had never adopted this roping off property and locking people out. Africa wouldn't be racked with poverty if we remained more communal, as just one huge and glaring example.There wouldn't be the glaring wealth and obscene poverty, also.  It will never be undone, of course, but if we'd never gone down this road, humankind would have been far better for it. Native Americans knew this as another simple, even perfect example.

Links:  The Injustice of Private Property in Land

“Capitalist private property” the cause of all war, misery, poverty

Another--Big---Reason We Should Lift the Cap On Social Security

It's commonly known there is a cap on earnings for paying in on Social Security. If you're wealthy and making $118,500 per year or more, you don't get taxed on the rest of that income.

Basically, if you're already wealthy, you get one more break from the rest of us stooges. Thanks, Congress!

As if that's not bad enough---and it is---it's clear, too, that, given that the wealthy also famously and statistically live longer than the rest of us poor schlubs, they get more benefits from the system.

The Upshot:  Rich People Are Living Longer. That's Tilting Social Security in Their Favor.

So they live longer, already, what with the cushy lives and security and great food and second (or third or fourth homes), etc. So since they do, they reap more benefits from the system. It makes sense. They live longer so THEY GET MORE MONEY FROM THE SYSTEM.

Sweet deal, huh? They're already wealthy and they soak more from the rest of us. And being rich, I'd nearly bet most of them are "small government" Republicans and Right Wingers and Libertarians, to boot.

It's sick. It's just one more way "Them that has, gets", as the Andrews Sisters used to sing.

The great thing is that there is an obvious and simple solution.

How Taxing the Wealthy Could Save Social Security

News flash:  How about we lift that cap on what they pay in?

This way, they can still contribute to the system---the system they usually take more advantage of since they live longer. Meantime, THEY DO WITHOUT NOTHING. They pay in a bit more, up front. Is that asking so much? It seems clear the answer is no. They pay in on the incomes over $118,500 and they get back, later in life, thus saving Social Security for all of us.

It helps all of us, it actually strengthens the middle and lower classes, thus strengthening the economy. All that's true as if doing the right thing, as a rather human, even "Christian" nation isn't enough and doesn't have it make all the more sense. It's good for the people, yes, but good to great for the nation and even, hell, good for creating demand for products, for all the Capitalists out there.

It makes so much sense. It makes too much sense.

Probably why the Republicans in Congress will never go for it.

On tonight's "Downton Abbey"

On tonight's PBS series of it's very popular "Downton Abbey", the story unfolds.

These extremely wealthy people, this extremely wealthy family, which has lived for decades in a mansion and extravagant luxury, supported by their extremely hard working, 24 hour staff, is fighting to keep said mansion and all the staff.  And all that luxury.

I can totally relate.

Link:   Downton Abbey

Groucho Marx, on wealth

"As soon as they become rich, they become Republican." --Groucho Marx, speaking to Dick Cavett on "The Dick Cavett Show"

Kansas Governor Brownback: "Take from the poor, give to the rich"

I find it difficult to believe these people can even get in office, let alone stay there. Here's the latest "take from the poor, give to the rich" scheme and this time it's from next-door neighbor Kansas: "A bill sponsored by Kansas Republican Governor Sam Brownback would spur economic growth by cutting income taxes on residents and doing away with them entirely for most small business while reducing or eliminating a variety of tax credits. But it turns out that in the version of the bill approved by a House committee this week, half a million of the state’s poorest residents who earn less than $25,000 will wind up paying an average of $72 more per year, while the 21,000 Kansans who make over $250.000 will get an average tax cut of $1500." The thing is, too, if you read the article (it's brief), you'll find his original plan gave even MORE to the rich and took even more from those who make less. HEADSLAP. I ask you, is that not disgusting? Why do any politicians get away with this? And then, how? ANY political party should be punished--and severely--at the polls for doing things like this. It just makes it so much easier if it's a Republican, as in this case.Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/24/kansas-may-raise-taxes-on-the-poor-to-fund-cuts-for-the-rich/

Gandhi's 7 Dangers to Human Virtue

1. Wealth without work; 2. Pleasure without conscience; 3. Knowledge without character; 4. Business without ethics; 5. Science without humanity; 6. Religion without sacrifice; 7. Politics without principle. (With thanks to long-time friend Dennis S. for this).

Truisms

Truism number 1: There is no "final frontier". Truism number 2: There is no such thing as "extra money." Truism number 3: You really can be "too thin" and you really can be "too rich." Have a great weekend, y'all.

Quote of the day--on rich v everyone else

"You can’t fight something with nothing. But as long as Democrats refuse to talk about the almost unprecedented buildup of income, wealth, and power at the top – and the refusal of the super-rich to pay their fair share of the nation’s bills – Republicans will convince people it’s all about government and unions."


--Robert Reich,  Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, author,  former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, etc.


Link to original post:  http://robertreich.org/post/3476451774

On cynicism

Having gone over this morning to Midtown Miscreant's blog for another reliable good read (If you haven't seen it, you might want to as it's good, he's funny and he's right, I think:  http://midtownmiscreant.blogspot.com/2011/01/fast-eddie-friday-house-cat-with.html)

It got me to thinking about cynics and cynicism so I looked up a formal definition of cynicism.  I found this on Wikipedia:

Cynicism (Greek: κυνισμός), in its original form, refers to the beliefs of an ancient school of Greek philosophers known as the Cynics (Greek: Κυνικοί, Latin: Cynici). Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health, and fame, and by living a simple life free from all possessions. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans. They believed that the world belonged equally to everyone, and that suffering was caused by false judgments of what was valuable and by the worthless customs and conventions which surrounded society. Many of these thoughts were later absorbed into Stoicism.


Check that out:  "the purpose of life" is "to live a life of virtue in agreement with nature."  


Zounds.  


That doesn't sound very cynical, at least not by our current usage of the word, does it?  And "rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, health" (I don't understand that last one) "and fame, and by living a simple life free from all possessions."  "...happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which" is "natural for humans."  "...the world belonging equally to everyone..." and "...suffering...caused by false judgments of what was valuable and by the worthless customs and conventions which surrounded society."


Far from our current ideas of cynicism, this sounds positively virtuous, positive, supportive and democratic (in the bigger, older form of the word, having nothing to do with any political party).


How did this word turn in usage?


Or, to be more specific, how did we get so cynical?


Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism

Wow. Mission Hills, Ks 3rd wealthiest neighborhood in the country

Yowza.

I mean, I knew these people had money but I didn't think they were in the 3rd richest neighborhood in the country, even if they do tie for 3rd.

Another Forbes Magazine ranking we hit.

Their stats:

Average Median Income: $243,000

Mission Hills is a suburb of Kansas City. It's in Kansas, not Missouri, but is home to the richest people in the area, like Kansas City Royals legend George Brett. Its estimated median household income is $243,000.

Yeah, this is one of the neighborhoods we needed to give those extra tax breaks to, so they can have more money and we can have more national debt, but that's another story.

Link:  http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111860/americas-most-affluent-neighborhoods?mod=realestate-buy

Quote of the day--on what's important

"...what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame – but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others."  --President Barack Obama, in his speech in Arizona after the shooting that left 6 people dead and 14 wounded.


Link to complete text and original post:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/politics/13obama-text.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Quote of the day--plutocracy

"Plutocracy and democracy don’t mix. Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder."    --Bill Moyers








Link to original post:  http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-money-fights-hard-and-it-fights-dirty64766

Why the gap between rich and poor matters in the US and the world

Don't think the tax rates on the wealthiest 1% should rise to that whopping 39% from where they are, by letting the George W. Bush Tax Cuts expire?  Then read on, McDuff:


First, income in America is now more concentrated in fewer hands than it’s been in 80 years. Almost a quarter of total income generated in the United States is going to the top 1 percent of Americans.

The top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now earn as much as the bottom 120 million of us. 


The marginal income tax rate on the very rich is the lowest it’s been in more than 80 years. Under President Dwight Eisenhower (who no one would have accused of being a radical) it was 91 percent. Now it’s 36 percent. Congress is even fighting over whether to end the temporary Bush tax cut for the rich and return them to the Clinton top tax of 39 percent.


The perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top; a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy; and a public becoming increasingly angry and cynical about a government that’s raising its taxes, reducing its services, and unable to get it back to work.

We’re losing our democracy to a different system. It’s called plutocracy.  --Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley


And so we're reminded, this from none other than Plato, all those centuries ago:  


"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."  

Link:  http://robertreich.org/post/1344561814

Brandeis University study shows racial wealth gap growing

New study finds racial wealth gap quadrupled since mid-1980s

National data reveal the effects of policies that benefit the wealthiest, persistent discrimination in housing, credit and labor markets

WALTHAM, Mass. – The wealth gap between white and African-American families increased more than four times between 1984-2007, and middle-income white households now own far more wealth than high-income African Americans, according to an analysis released on Monday by the Institute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP) at Brandeis University.

IASP, in a research brief, also reported that many African Americans hold more debt than assets and at least 25 percent of African-American families had no assets to turn to in times of economic hardship. The fourfold increase in the wealth gap, it said, reflects public policies, such as tax cuts on investment income and inheritances, which benefit the wealthiest and persistent discrimination in housing, credit and labor markets.

"Our study shows a broken chain of achievement. Even when African Americans do everything right -- get an education and work hard at well-paying jobs -- they cannot achieve the wealth of their white peers in the workforce, and that translates into very different life chances," said Thomas Shapiro, IASP director and co-author of the research brief.

And here is the crux of the matter, at least to me:

"A U-turn is needed. Public policies have and continue to play a major role in creating and sustaining the racial wealth gap, and they must play a role in closing it," said Shapiro, author of The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality and the co-author of Black Wealth/White Wealth.

Indeed, the data indicate that the general trend in lending, in which consumers of color pay more for accessing credit, increases their debt and blocks opportunities to move forward, putting them at a severe economic disadvantage. These are concerns that must be addressed through the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, now being debated in Congress, and other policy changes, IASP said.

"The data suggests we need renewed attention to public policies that provide real opportunities for advancement by reducing barriers to mobility inherent in our tax system and increasing transparency, regulation and access in our housing and credit markets," said Laura Sullivan, another co-author.

I remember, years ago, speaking to a friend in the car sales business--I'll never forget it--and he told me that if an African-American walked on their car lot, the price of the car automatically jumped up a few thousand dollars.

I was stunned.

I also remember seeing a picture of the city--our city--after the subprime meltdown in home mortgages, showing where most of the late loans and possible foreclosures were going to be in town.

And that was East of Troost, frankly.

Clearly, it was later reported, mortgage companies had gone out, into the neighborhoods over there and offered the people these loans, taking advantage of them.

Did those people have to sign for those loans?

No, certainly not.

But for a lot of people--white, black, brown, whatever--if a banker tells you it's a good thing, they believe him or her. Sure, it's foolish but people have done it. And they will again, I'd wager.

So if you're white and reading this, don't think minorities are not and have not been financially discriminated against and that it hasn't been widely used and practiced.

Just don't.

Link to original post:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/bu-nsf051210.php

Link to Brandeis University Institute on Assets and Social Policy:
http://iasp.brandeis.edu/

P.S. I highly recommend you go, at least, to the top link because it has a great deal more terrific, insightful information than I can or did post here. It's great and important reading, I think, for all of us, nationwide.

You owe it to yourself to watch this video

2 Contentions

I have 2 contentions about this planet and humankind that I believe are unequivocal in their truth:

The first is that the most devastating and negtive influence on the planet to the same planet Earth is man or humankind.

The second is that the most negative influence on the planet, its ecosystem and balance and because of this, our own situation, is the monopolization of land and so, wealth.

Insane imbalances

I've been convinced that some of the worst things humankind ever did involved creating the nuclear bomb--of course--the automobile and the television, not necessarily in that order.

These things have created a great deal of our problems--the nuclear blast, pollution, I can't even think of what TV has done to us but it hasn't been good.

But I recently came across what I think is one of the number one things humankind has created that has caused so many problems and unfairness and inequality over time.

Ironically, I learned of the formal name for it on my first ocean cruise, last March. While on this cruise, I read a bit of a book about Central America and what had happened to it. It was then and there I learned the term and siituation.

Mankind's "downfall", if we can call it that here, is is "the monopolization of land."

It's the monopolization of land that inflicts the huge, gross inequality between "have" and "have not" people and groups.

Think of it.

Abotiginal groups--be it in Australia or in the United States with the indigenous, native Americans (that term doesn't seem appropriate, frankly), all functioned as one people, all utilizing what they had and all of virtually equal material status.

Very natural. Very fair. Very equal.

Then, the white, "New world" people came in to whatever area they were occupying, be it Australia or some portion of America or wherever, and divided areas up into "yours" vs. "mine".

Instead of all sharing all the resources, it was divided up into people's individual interests, resulting in some with a great deal of resources and wealth and others with less, little or not much at all.

Later, then, this could and did feed into the corporation and its ability to own items and people and productivity, distorting wealth even further.

This is the way you create people with outrageous amounts of wealth (google images of the Cote d'Azur) vs. poverty, starvation and other degradations of imbalance and unfairness.

It has been happening down through humankind's time. It's happening now in Nigeria, with their new discoveries of oil, for instance.

Most people, sadly, won't understand what I'm even saying here.

The land and earth should be and should have been for all of us--not just some small, self-selected few, be they some "royalty" or oil firm or what- or whomever.

Food, clothing, healthcare and a good, basic, healthy way of living should be for all of us, not just some small few.