Robin Hood and Other Scary Concepts
Every so often somebody suggests that we revise the tax code so that a
person who makes considerably more money than the rest of us pays a higher
percentage in taxes. But whenever that’s proposed, a chorus of conservatives
cries out, “No, no! That’s redistribution of wealth! The government has no
right to take money from us rich folks and give it to the poor!”
First of all, no one has suggested that the tax man, the secretary of the
treasury, the president or anybody else should play Robin Hood.
It's not about the re-distribution of wealth. That's an old, tired
Republican claim. It's about the distribution of the burden. A just society
attempts to distribute the burden of paying its expenses as equitably as
possible. The progressive tax system was created based on the fairness of
burden, not the percentage of wealth.
To make sure we’re all using the same dictionary, here are two words whose
meaning we should agree on. A “progressive” tax rate rises, or progresses,
as your taxable income rises, and it shrinks as your taxable income
declines. On the other hand, a “regressive” tax rate is one that remains the
same (its rate is “flat”), no matter whether your taxable income rises or
falls.
A flat or regressive tax is inherently unfair to the lower wage earners.
Somebody making a million bucks a year can pay a twenty percent tax and the
$200,000 it costs him is an inconvenience, but it won't effect his food
bill. However, a twenty percent tax on a man making fifty thousand is
$10,000 and that will effect how much he can spend at the grocery store and
whether or not he can save enough for his kid’s education. Hence, that’ s
not sharing equitably the burden of paying for government services.
Democrats have never been about trying to equalize income. They've been
concerned with reducing the growing gap between rich and poor, and they want
to close the gap by raising the poor man's wage (minimum wage) rather than
by reducing the rich man's income. Rich men and women will always have a
better life than poor or middle-class people. Yes, they’re entitled to amass
and enjoy their wealth, so long as it doesn’t add to the burden of the poor
man.
Republicans have traditionally opposed any raise in the minimum wage
because, they say, it raises prices. They're right, it does. But minimum
wage increases also stimulate our economy. Higher wages benefit businesses
by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover,
raising productivity and improving product quality and company reputation.
They reinforce long-term success. Yes, it raises prices for everybody, but
it provides greater income than the price increases.
The decade between the minimum wage increase to $5.15 an hour on Sept. 1,
1997, and the July 24, 2007 increase to $5.85 was the longest period in
history without a raise. When the next increase phases to $6.55 it will
still be lower than the inflation-adjusted $9.86 minimum wage of 1968!
That's 40 years ago!
Between 1947 and 1973, worker productivity rose 104% and the minimum wage
rose 101%, adjusting for inflation. Now that's a pretty fair society,
workers shared in the benefits of increased productivity.
However, between 1973 and 2007, productivity rose 83% and the minimum wage
fell 22%, adjusting for inflation. That's not a fair society. On top of
that, average worker wages fell 10% while domestic corporate profits rose
219%, and retail industry profits jumped 346%. Something is seriously out of
whack here! It costs a lot of money to have a global military presence and
to provide for the nation’s needs, whether it’s building levees in New
Orleans or picking up trash in a national park, running Social Security and
Medicare, a space station, the National Institutes of Health, or anyone one
of a million different necessary services. The middle and lower income wage
earners are bearing an unfair share of the burden. It’s time for a change.
—Jack Slack