Reply #4: here's the post that started the thread, plus two

[RainDog]

...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