Here are the parts of the Share the Wealth proposal, as laid out in Wikipedia (I have used the “then year” dollars, as per Wikipedia, but in brackets have included 2012 equivalents.♥):
- No person would be allowed to accumulate a personal net worth of more than 300 times the average family fortune, which would limit personal assets to between $5 million [$83.75 million today] and $8 million [$134 million today]. A graduated capital levy tax would be assessed on all persons with a net worth exceeding $1 million [$16.75 million today].
- Annual incomes would be limited to $1 million and inheritances would be capped at $5 million.
- Every family was to be furnished with a homestead allowance of not less than one-third the average family wealth of the country. Every family was to be guaranteed an annual family income of at least $2,000 [$33,500 today] to $2,500 [$41,876 today], or not less than one-third of the average annual family income in the United States. Yearly income, however, cannot exceed more than 300 times the size of the average family income.
- An old-age pension would be made available for all persons over 60.
- To balance agricultural production, the government would preserve/store surplus goods, abolishing the practice of destroying surplus food and other necessities due to lack of purchasing power.
- Veterans would be paid what they were owed (a pension and healthcare benefits).
- Free education and training for all students to have equal opportunities in all schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions for training in the professions and vocations of life.
- The raising of revenue and taxes for the support of this program was to come from the reduction of swollen fortunes from the top, as well as for the support of public works to give employment whenever there may be any slackening necessary in private enterprise.
Do we want this kind of wealth leveling in the United States? If we went in this direction would we still be the United States in the end, or would it be the “completion” of our historic journey or would it be a turn in the wrong direction, destroying both our economy and our democratic system?
Mark me a skeptic.
Regards — Cliff
♠ As a sidenote, the bodyguards managed to put 62 bullets into the assassin, Dr Carl Weiss. That seems like a lot of bullets.
♥ I have used the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Calculator to calculate the 2012 numbers.
2 comments:
1Warren's efforts are to level the playing field, not the wealth.
www.consumerfinance.gov
Admittedly, should the working class get a fair shake, some wealth will begin to aggregate here. I'm not sure it's a given that the elite 1% would lose wealth. The pie can get bigger. Can we cut the slices in a fair manner?
"Wealth Leveling" would be the second wrong in the attempt to correct the first wrong - how our society financially values the various contributions of its citizens.
Back in the 1920s there was a concentration of wealth abetted by the reduction of the top tax rate to 25%. Not only did the very wealthy contribute less to the public treasury, but the disincentive to take more and more out of the workforce was lessened.
In later years the tax laws limited that transfer of wealth, with top rates as high as 91%. The pendulum had swung to far to the left.
More recently those top rates were moderated, now at 35%. But the means to reduce that much further have been embedded in the tax code so that those who control lobbying for such benefits actually pay much less. And unfortunately, most of those benefits are bestowed not on entrepreneurs, but rather financial engineers who use other peoples' assets to their advantage.
So rather than institute a second wrong with some form of wealth leveling, a better tax code with more certain results would to some degree accomplish the same end, while still maintaining proper value for contribution to our society.
Post a Comment