When you have various union groups rallying outside City Hall that, for the most part, are there to yell at rich people, as a group, there's a problem. No strangers to giving grief, the unions usually frame their contention as labor to business, not just the rich. For them it's usually not a class issue, only a function of who they have to deal with, capital. Unions exist for the taking to task of capital that either doesn't respect them (the unions) or, more importantly, play within the rules of the past fifty years of labor/management relations.
And so, the rich (however you define that) are just going to have to step up and appease the mob. It would have been nice if it had not come this. But, here we are. Some people, who up till now have pretty much had economic free reign, are going to have to pay a little more.
A little--what many New Yorkers consider to be a fair share, like the group Fair Share Tax Reform, who argue for a "shared sacrifice" in these bad times by those who profited during the good. Government spending and services will be cut this year, how drastically is still in question. Major cuts in jobs and services vital to all those but the rich, doesn't seem very fair to me.
The "little" part is important because politicos tend to think and talk about these things in absolute terms: innovation-starving socialism or entrepreneurial-friendly capitalism, limited (ineffectual) or big (wasteful) government, progressive (distributing wealth downward) or regressive (distributing wealth upward) taxation, and most importantly, chocolate or peanut butter.
Fortunately, much like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups lovers, you don't have to choose; you can have both or something in between. And, despite all the evidence to the contrary by temper-tantrumed TV-personalities and on bickering blogs, most people aren't as polarized either.
Most of the "rich" aren't going to move out of the state, decreasing state budget revenue, because of slight shift in the tax burden--the argument made by the conservative politicians in NY, and abroad, who rail against a so-called "Millionaires Tax," which would go a long way to mind-ing the billions of this year's budget gap.
You're telling me that some multimillionaire, nay billionaire is going to move 50 or 100 or more miles across state lines, away from friends and family and workplace, to save a few thousand dollars? Just because something is the best deal, doesn't mean it's the best deal. For those that do move: screw 'em--is that the kind of people we want as fellow state residents?
That goes for corporations, too. As when lamenting the loss of companies and jobs to lower taxes and wages in other countries, the same ballyhoo is proffered up by states for keeping corporate taxes low and the minimum-wage stagnant--the retention of businesses in the state. (A similar idea of "retention," of the "best and the brightest" by AIG, is being batted down as I write this. Though I don't think the AIG guys are an example of when a company would actually want to keep good employees--obviously they weren't.)
This diaspora-paranoia about businesses exodus from traditional sectors in America's industrial complex, from the 70's onward, isn't without basis in reality. Historically, far from it. But that's for increasingly fewer types of industry, like car manufacturing and textiles. Instead of trying to revive or keep alive old industries, we should incentivize technology (for example, alternative energy r&d) and explore new business models, such as public/private partnerships.
(It's key that historical processes, while true of a particular time and place, are not absolutes binding human behavior, that we must structure our lives and world around. Rather, in a more reciprocal relationship, as we structure society to fit our wants and needs, so too those structures influence and shape us. This is a good thing. It allows room for change and, maybe, progress.
With no disrespect to Mr. Wiesenthal, I think it takes more than simply remembering history to avoid repeating it: a contextual reading of that history is necessary. Too, an unnuanced look backward can engender the repetition of past mistakes, as recurring behavioral patterns can develop within contiguously similar contexts. How can someone be expected to stop fighting back when they keeps getting kicked in the face, even if they know their fight is futile?)
The following paragraph is from Paul Krugman this week, about what school teachers in my home town are doing to help out the school system, their workplace. It's something that's actually crossed my mind recently. But feeling foolish in its simplicity, I hesitated verbalizing the idea:
"The schoolteachers here [Montgomery County, MD], who make on average $67,000 a year, recently voted to voluntarily give up their 5 percent pay raise that was contractually agreed to for next year, saving our school system $89 million — so programs and teachers would not have to be terminated. If public schoolteachers can take one for schoolchildren and fellow teachers, A.I.G. brokers can take one for the country."
That's the sprirt--taking one for the team!
So, take a lesson Wall St.--even if it isn't the financial capital of the world anymore, or even the country, according to Ian Bremmer on WorldFoucs, a PBS program, recently. Still, they are a significant part of our tax base, and, even in these times of dwindling bonuses and expense accounts, and populist rage, they aren't people we have to run out of town.
Besides, when the alternative is a fiscally hand-tied government, with extreme cuts to health care, education, and unemployment, who could live here besides the rich?
And so, the rich (however you define that) are just going to have to step up and appease the mob. It would have been nice if it had not come this. But, here we are. Some people, who up till now have pretty much had economic free reign, are going to have to pay a little more.
A little--what many New Yorkers consider to be a fair share, like the group Fair Share Tax Reform, who argue for a "shared sacrifice" in these bad times by those who profited during the good. Government spending and services will be cut this year, how drastically is still in question. Major cuts in jobs and services vital to all those but the rich, doesn't seem very fair to me.
The "little" part is important because politicos tend to think and talk about these things in absolute terms: innovation-starving socialism or entrepreneurial-friendly capitalism, limited (ineffectual) or big (wasteful) government, progressive (distributing wealth downward) or regressive (distributing wealth upward) taxation, and most importantly, chocolate or peanut butter.
Fortunately, much like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups lovers, you don't have to choose; you can have both or something in between. And, despite all the evidence to the contrary by temper-tantrumed TV-personalities and on bickering blogs, most people aren't as polarized either.Most of the "rich" aren't going to move out of the state, decreasing state budget revenue, because of slight shift in the tax burden--the argument made by the conservative politicians in NY, and abroad, who rail against a so-called "Millionaires Tax," which would go a long way to mind-ing the billions of this year's budget gap.
You're telling me that some multimillionaire, nay billionaire is going to move 50 or 100 or more miles across state lines, away from friends and family and workplace, to save a few thousand dollars? Just because something is the best deal, doesn't mean it's the best deal. For those that do move: screw 'em--is that the kind of people we want as fellow state residents?
That goes for corporations, too. As when lamenting the loss of companies and jobs to lower taxes and wages in other countries, the same ballyhoo is proffered up by states for keeping corporate taxes low and the minimum-wage stagnant--the retention of businesses in the state. (A similar idea of "retention," of the "best and the brightest" by AIG, is being batted down as I write this. Though I don't think the AIG guys are an example of when a company would actually want to keep good employees--obviously they weren't.)
This diaspora-paranoia about businesses exodus from traditional sectors in America's industrial complex, from the 70's onward, isn't without basis in reality. Historically, far from it. But that's for increasingly fewer types of industry, like car manufacturing and textiles. Instead of trying to revive or keep alive old industries, we should incentivize technology (for example, alternative energy r&d) and explore new business models, such as public/private partnerships.
(It's key that historical processes, while true of a particular time and place, are not absolutes binding human behavior, that we must structure our lives and world around. Rather, in a more reciprocal relationship, as we structure society to fit our wants and needs, so too those structures influence and shape us. This is a good thing. It allows room for change and, maybe, progress.
With no disrespect to Mr. Wiesenthal, I think it takes more than simply remembering history to avoid repeating it: a contextual reading of that history is necessary. Too, an unnuanced look backward can engender the repetition of past mistakes, as recurring behavioral patterns can develop within contiguously similar contexts. How can someone be expected to stop fighting back when they keeps getting kicked in the face, even if they know their fight is futile?)
The following paragraph is from Paul Krugman this week, about what school teachers in my home town are doing to help out the school system, their workplace. It's something that's actually crossed my mind recently. But feeling foolish in its simplicity, I hesitated verbalizing the idea:
"The schoolteachers here [Montgomery County, MD], who make on average $67,000 a year, recently voted to voluntarily give up their 5 percent pay raise that was contractually agreed to for next year, saving our school system $89 million — so programs and teachers would not have to be terminated. If public schoolteachers can take one for schoolchildren and fellow teachers, A.I.G. brokers can take one for the country."
That's the sprirt--taking one for the team!
So, take a lesson Wall St.--even if it isn't the financial capital of the world anymore, or even the country, according to Ian Bremmer on WorldFoucs, a PBS program, recently. Still, they are a significant part of our tax base, and, even in these times of dwindling bonuses and expense accounts, and populist rage, they aren't people we have to run out of town.
Besides, when the alternative is a fiscally hand-tied government, with extreme cuts to health care, education, and unemployment, who could live here besides the rich?
1 comment:
I like this a lot.
Post a Comment