Skip to main content

View Diary: No country for Zuckerbergs (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Looking at the Forbes 400 (19+ / 0-)

    I just scanned through the top 30:  there were four Waltons (all in the top 9), two Kochs (tied for #5), three members of the Mars (candy) family and one Cox (cable).  Thus 1/3 of the top of the list inherited their wealth.  As the Kochs have amply shown us, this is bad for the health of American democracy.  

    Another five members earned their fortunes in the financial markets.  They range from Warren Buffett, old-fashioned investor who has helped many others benefit, to several hedge-fund and leveraged buy-out kings who have destroyed the economy for untold thousands of workers to enrich themselves.  

    There is a sound argument for top marginal tax rates:  redistributing wealth puts more money in the hands of more Americans, and that's good for the stability and growth of the economy.  Those arguments also apply to the estate tax, and to financial transactions taxes that discourage churning in the financial markets.

    •  Don't call it (7+ / 0-)

      redistributing wealth. That makes it sound as though the money actually belongs to the people who took it from the real producers in society: the people who get up at the crack of dawn every day and go to work whether they want to or not.

      There must be a snappy phrase that describes a policy of allowing workers to keep a fair share of their labor instead of giving it to the plutocrats.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 09:01:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rebuilding the Middle Class (3+ / 0-)

        That's long been my prescription for a central organizing principle for Democratic economic policy.  It will necessarily entail taking some of the nation's wealth away from the wealthiest, because there's no other way to achieve the goal.

        I don't mind using the phrase redistributing wealth, and I think we should use it more.  We ought to use it, for instance, to describe the last 30 years of American economic policy, because it has dramatically redistributed wealth upward.  If we use the phrase in a descriptive way, we remove a lot of its propagandistic meaning.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site