In much the same way that Thomas Paine’s writings were an inspiration for the American Revolution, the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau served as inspiration for the French one. It is Rousseau from which the anarchist maxim of “Eat The Rich” is derived. His precise quote was “When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they shall eat the rich.” But if we “eat the rich” today, what (or who) will we eat tomorrow?
In hard times “soak the rich” economics are often a popular alternative to redistribute wealth to those suffering in the lower strata of society. While peasants in the times of Rousseau were actually starving, times have not quite reached that nadir in this country. In a nation where obesity is one of the major health concerns for our lowest economic classes, where even the poorest among us have televisions, cell phones and food stamps, and where $50,000 a year income places you in the top 1% of wage earners world wide… we lose perspective. We do not by any means live in a society where Rousseau might say “the people have nothing more to eat…”.
Nevertheless, we seem to have appropriated the concept of soaking the rich in the current political climate, because not only do we wish to eat, we wish to eat well… and on someone else’s tab. Unfortunately when it comes to math, most of us have trouble with higher numbers. Millions, billions, trillions… so many zeroes it’s confusing to understand how much we are spending, taxing, cutting. When the numbers get that high we’re all a little like Dustin Hoffman’s character in Rain Man, whose only concept of money was that everything from a candy bar to a compact car cost “about a hundred dollars”. So it’s easy for politicians to manipulate us by throwing a bunch of numbers at us. They create the illusion that the answer to all our problems is to take money from the rich, they have so much; who hasn’t thought how much better our lives could be if some rich guy would just give us some of his money? Of course, when you actually do the math, the proposed tax increases on the rich would only feed the voracious government beast for about eight days of the year… what do we do for days 9 through 365? It’s not really about the money, is it?
Whatever the reason for soaking the rich, their “contributions” are but a drop in the bucket when compared with the total economy; as Tolkien wrote, “like butter scraped over too much bread”. So we fail to solve the real problem because we pursue an action that satisfies our baser lusts of jealousy and covetousness while doing nothing to address the real issue, a central government that is bloated in every conceivable way. Like the celebrities and sports stars who blow every penny of the millions they receive, and then some; our government literally doesn’t know how to make, much less maintain a budget. Our gluttony has taken all that we have, and now we are eating the future.
We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world because of our capitalist system, where people receive the fruits of their labor. As in any economic system, there have been abuses, and that is always the down-side of freedom; but the prosperity of the U.S. is a direct result of the American Dream, a land where you can have the opportunity to make your fortune. That few people actually do end up making a literal fortune doesn’t change the fact that the opportunity is there, and that people from all social strata sometimes succeed. We should concentrate less on making the rich poorer, than on helping to make the poor richer. Wealth brings wealth, not just to the wealthy themselves, but to the people who surround them, who sell them cars, work on their houses, and are employed in their businesses. If the wealthy use their money as power to defraud or impoverish their poorer brethren, then that is evil, though not so much the norm with individuals as it might be with huge corporations. If the rich are despised for their good fortune, and if their property is to be confiscated; in this ever shrinking globe, why would they stay here? And if they do stay, do we really think they won’t find ways not to pay up? If we take the incentive out of capital gains investment and job creation, might we not expect to see these drivers of the economy decline? I don’t know if the proposed tax increases would be earth shaking, but are tough economic times really the best place to experiment? Are we eating the goose that laid the golden egg, with a side of next year’s seed corn?
Good article. Short and to the point. This is what the republicans failed to do in the election but the media sure shares that guilt. The public has to be told (in understandable language) that we cannot do this. They certainly need to be told the whole truth as to how far the tax hike will go — 9 days is stunning. That message of “we are not taxed too little – we spend too much” never made it into the ears and hearts of the citizens. What a wasted election it was. This group in power certainly hate the successful.
Well written, as always, but I think you are missing a crucial point. It’s not primarily about for how long moderate tax increases on the wealthy would “feed the voracious government beast” (what exactly do you mean by that, anyway?) – it is a matter of fairness. The revenue generated by such tax increases may be but a drop in the bucket but you could easily say the same about the amount of money we could save by continuing to cut social programs that millions of underprivileged Americans rely on. And the alleged abuse of benefits often overdramatized by the political right constitutes an even smaller drop in the bucket. Anyway, the common sentiment is that we should all contribute according to our means, especially when times are tough. This is what solidarity is all about and if President Obama’s opponent thought he could win the election while paying a tax rate that is significantly lower than that of the average tax payer, he greatly underestimated the goodness of the American people. Maybe President Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy is popular because most people know that it is the right thing to do. Not necessarily to fix the budget but to send the important message that we are all in the same boat and that we all need to pay our share according to our means. This said, I suggest two things that can be done to get the budget back on track, at least in the long term: 1) Redefine foreign policy (that is, mind your own business) and consequently slash the bloated defense budget 2) Nationalize health care to take profit out of the equation and ensure full coverage for every American.
P.S.: $50,000 a year may place you in the top 1% of wage earners worldwide but if a decent loaf of bread costs you $4, even that doesn’t get you very far.
@tsc444: Some great points. I think the military may actually be one of the best examples of what I mean when I say “feed the voracious government beast”. We are ever in a struggle between what we think we need versus what we can afford to have without stalling the economic engine of prosperity. We have tried to circumvent that struggle with a 16 trillion dollar credit card, but that can’t possibly work forever. It doesn’t always have to be an either/or choice, intelligent leaders should be able save dollars through efficiencies, a consideration that seems to have been woefully absent in recent years, and is always a challenge in huge bureaucracies. Militarily, MYOB is one option, but another could be to redefine the way we extend police actions into ten year wars. Maybe we can’t be the world’s policeman, but we certainly can’t be their live-in security team and social worker. The virtue of thrift needs to be brought back into vogue, and no part of the budget (if we ever decide to have one) can be exempted. As Everett Dirkson said “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money’.
As far as risking the tanking of a weak economy for some abstract idea of “fairness”, argument can be made, and is, as to whether the top tiers of the economy already bear a disproportionate share of the load. Stipulating that loopholes and taking advantage of existing law may create the impression of unfairness, the real world fact is that the rich will always find a way to stay rich, especially in a free society. Expecting to be able to force the rich to be fair to the poor is like trying to force a lion to be fair to a gazelle. You can argue for hours about the rules to a game, and the rich man will simply go buy another game. France is beginning to see how this works. Even such Obama allies as Costco and Google are taking advantage of the same tax dodges that Romney did in an attempt to escape the taxes they themselves have advocated! This is an argument that would be best faced in better economic times. There is something perverse in bringing people down in the cause of fairness instead of raising others up, and the system that requires that is flawed. It’s not the small tax hike that is the real problem, it is that we should be moving in the opposite direction, and we are viewing an extension of the problem as part of the solution.
Fairness is not just “some abstract idea”; it stems from justice which should be at the very core of any legislative initiative, regardless of the current state of the economy. We can debate whether our top earners are already paying their fair share and we may ultimately disagree but we should not put our core values on the back burner over economic considerations. But otherwise, I agree with most of what you are saying. You are pointing out some of the fundamental flaws of the capitalist mode of production: Our economy cannot grow indefinitely. Even in our age of over-commercialism and credit-card spending we will eventually run out of people to sell our products to — provided that we don’t run out of resources first. The globalization of the marketplace may slow this development but even on a global scale we cannot create demand indefinitely. Without demand there will be no growth. Still, we are so fixated on growth that we are willing to sacrifice our core values to keep the machinery going a little longer when, instead, we should be focussing on sustainability if we intend to have a future on this planet at all. In the mean time, we will continue to use the system to our advantage whenever we can. Capitalism brings out the worst in all of us by its very nature. Your lion-gazelle metaphor says it all. One may argue that our economic system suits us well as it reflects our animalistic nature but I have higher hopes for humankind. I believe that we should strive for a system that is based on solidarity and compassion — a true reflection of who we are as human beings. We may disagree on whether this is possible without giving up our personal freedom but what frustrates me is that the political mainstream doesn’t even raise this question at all. Conservatives hail capitalism with all its flaws as the only source of prosperity while so-called liberals intend to prolong its doomed existence by implementing regulatory measures that bring but temporary relief to those oppressed by the system.