.
.
.
If it has done nothing else, the “Occupy” movement has raised an interesting question – what IS my fair share? With many in the 1% paying more than half of their earnings to income taxes (and then paying all of the other taxes and fees imposed elsewhere), the claims of the Occupy movement that the 1% is not paying their fair share rings a bit hollow when 47% of America pays ZERO income taxes. In my humble opinion, the one thing that people will publicly agree on virtually universally is a call for the end to the complexity of the tax code that allows specific tax loopholes – but be careful even there because elimination of ALL loopholes (or deductions as they are actually called in the code) would have a dramatic impact on current society (mortgage and charitable deductions).
Its easy to call for people to pay their fair share, another thing to come up with a plan that is actually fair. Here is a quick poll to see what the readers of the juice think:
Is it fair for ANYONE to have to pay more than half of their income as taxes? Yes No
Is it fair that 47% of America pays no income tax? Yes No
A citation, please, for the following claim:
As for the following claim:
What is the point of your singling out income taxes? Why do you ignore payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and fees — all of which are flat or regressive — and property taxes, which are passed on to renters?
The 47% also doesn’t tend to get crony capitalist handouts, and cannot afford expensive defense from the likes of Sheppard Mullin attorneys when it damages others, inducing regulators to go after the tiny fish because they’re easier to catch.
Does your point here depend on people not realizing that the progressive income tax is not the only tax around? If so, sorry to mess things up for you.
You actually went to “pass along” property taxes? Does that mean business owner’s “pass along” income taxes. By the way, with changes in the payroll taxes, the income cap on a portion of it was completely removed and was greatly expanded as to the remainder eliminating arguments about disproportionality of that tax. Most of the “other taxes” are sin taxes put in place by Democrats to discourage behaviors (smoking, alcohol, etc).
Wow — there sure is a lot of what I asked that you didn’t answer there. Did you think that no one would notice?
To some extent business income taxes are passed on, to some extent not. It depends on the market and competition. Rental markets are usually less competitive and the rental mommitment is more “sticky,” making passing on taxes to consumers easier. And, of course, that there are more foreclosures means higher demand for rental property, meaning a better negotiating position for landlords.
The payroll tax on medicare is flat; SSDI is a bit regressive. I take it that that’s what you mean by “proportional.” Of course, what you fail to factor in is the marginal value of money — your 5th thousand dollars of income means less than your 50th, which means less than your 500th, etc. By this “utility of income” measure, even the Medicare tax — which of course applies to labor and not investment income — is not flat.
Let’s not forget to talk about all of the things you skipped, huh?
tick – tock – tick – tock –
The government needs to evaluate the “marginal value of money?” Really? So now we need to look at how good a job the earner has done at saving to figure out how to tax them because the sanitation worker that has frugally saved a million dollars has a different marginal value of money that a stockbroker that earns more but is so leveraged because of overspending that he has a negative net worth. The government should never step into that game.
I love how you demand citation and then make blanket statements about the relative fluidity of the rental and other markets with no support.
As to your other arguments, they seem to have disappeared – please resubmit and I will comment.
Well, what I see, Geoff, and it’s only up a couple comments from here, is that Greg wrote:
“Why do you ignore payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and fees — all of which are flat or regressive — and property taxes, which are passed on to renters? The 47% also doesn’t tend to get crony capitalist handouts… ” etc.
And you jumped on whether or not property taxes are passed on to renters – which of course they are. And it seems like you figure the rest of this list was dealt with that quickly and easily.
I am personally happy about this movement for two main reasons:
It focuses on constitutional abuses and;
It provides social consciousness.
However, it can’t provide any fixes because it is too myopic.
Here’s an interesting new study, and it raises a great question for Geoff:
Can America sustain the income trends in this report and remain a great country?
Also, explain to us why growing numbers of people shouldn’t be legitimately alarmed and angered by these trends.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485
Nice try!
You must also show cost of living increase specifically in California.
No you don’t. Cost of living affects everyone equally. I gallon of gas or an hour of electrical use or a gallon of milk costs everyone the same.
“Cost of living affects everyone equally”……… Hmmmmm
Wrong Onan!
A cost of living of 1% is proportionally higher. i.e. $1M boat may cost 2M and maintenance too double. Same for housing and battler kitchen, cooks etc.
You do not know what you are talking about Onan, when it comes to economy, bookkeeping and balance sheet.
You’re just making shit up, Stanley.
Cost of living goes up, yes. But it goes up for everyone at the same time. If I go buy a boat today and it costs me $10,000, it will also cost a billionaire $10,000 today. If I buy it in ten years, it may cost me $15,000. The same for the billionaire. Same for the maintenance. Same for housing. Same for kitchen. Same for cooks, etc.
Besides, you’re talking about discretionary spending. Someone in the 1% doesn’t HAVE to spend money on a fancy kitchen. That has nothing to do with the cost of living. But when his discretionary cook goes out to buy a gallon of milk, it will cost the 1% the same as it will cost the 99%.
In other words, with the 1%’s income rising at a much higher rate than mine, as reflected in the study I posted, the rise in the cost of living will negatively impact those in the 99% to a greater degree.
An even better example than the gallon of milk would be a gallon of gas.
“If I go buy a boat today and it costs me $10,000, it will also cost a billionaire $10,000 today.”……… Hmmmm
This is where you liberals go wrong!
Firstly it is probably 1M not 10K so everything is 10x higher.
Go to regular car repair with Toyota and ask for new brakes
then take Mercedes and do the same. It will be double.
Example:
Toyota $100
Mercedes $200
If cost of living increases 10% than
Toyota $110
Mercedes $220
So cost of living for 1% increased $20 and 99% 0nly $10.
This so basic but moron mongoloids can’t get it!
But the 1% could buy the Toyota instead. But the 99% can’t afford the Mercedes. So the 1% could live like the rest of us, but instead they want to justify continuing to live high on the hog.
(Also, I bet the brakes on the Mercedes last twice as long as the Toyota’s….)
Cost of Living does not change based on your income bracket.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Sound familar?
If you end special tax loopholes and corporate welfare, then I have no problem with however the market divides the pie. The beauty of this country is that you have a chance like no other time and place in history to quickly change your economic status. The market will correct itself as it has over time. Anger should have nothing to do with it, creativity and hard work are the ways to change those numbers.
And one thing that some in the Occupy Movement are angry about is corporate subsidies and the toxic relationship between corporations and elected officials that LEADS to special treatment for corporations, isn’t it?
As I have said consistently, I agree that corporate subsidies should end. Be careful what you ask for because many of the current corporate subsidies are going to very left causes like solar and wind power. I would love to hear practical solutions on how to reasonably limit the relationship between elected officials and groups willing to spend money to gain influence. Don’t forget, in California the top of that list is ALL public unions, not corporations.
I’ll take that as a yes.
No, it means:
“As I have said consistently, I agree that corporate subsidies should end. Be careful what you ask for because many of the current corporate subsidies are going to very left causes like solar and wind power. I would love to hear practical solutions on how to reasonably limit the relationship between elected officials and groups willing to spend money to gain influence. Don’t forget, in California the top of that list is ALL public unions, not corporations.”
Well then answer my question literally, with a “yes” or a “no.”
It’s funny how the Occupiers seem to have no problem with the toxic relationship between unions and elected officials that leads to the very same special treatment for unions that you lament with corporations.
I would be happy to agree to an end to union contributions to campaigns if it went hand and hand with an end to corporate contributions – but it never does! Including in Mark Bucher’s new Paycheck Deception initiative. Your side wants to UNILATERALLY disarm working people. Not fair, not happening.
Paycheck Protection does NOT disarm working people, it arms them. Currently, working people have virtually no choice but contribute to the political activities of Unions. Under this measure, each employee has the CHOICE of deciding whether their own money should support union political efforts or not. Can’t see how you can LIE and say that is disarming working people. Just more good rhetoric cooked up by union goons to maintain their power.
Preventing unions from collecting dues from members is sort of like eliminating exemptions from individual liability for owners of and investors in corporations. You can do it, but it sort of defeats the purpose. Of course, defeating the purpose is Ge’off’s goal here.
Newbie: I oppose what is toxic. But, I certainly won’t take your word for what is toxic. You seem, for example, to see opposing “malefactors of great wealth” (look it up) as toxic, when it’s actually tonic.
Just so’s he doesn’t have to look up that phrase, it is not Marx, Lenin or Mao – it is Teddy Roosevelt.
“The beauty of this country is that you have a chance like no other time and place in history to quickly change your economic status.”
WRONG!
Excerpts from;
THE MYTH OF UPWARD MOBILITY
Richard Delgado
American society, especially today, exhibits much less upward mobility than most people think and certainly less than popular sources would suggest.
Recent studies show that the United States has one of the lowest rates of upward mobility in the developed world and that few citizens leave the class into which they are born for a higher one. Downward mobility is just as common as the upward variety, particularly for African Americans, but also for the middle class in general.
One of the more arresting figures that emerges from studies of upward mobility is that a person born in the lowest economic stratum has only about a two percent chance of ending life anywhere near the top.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found that fewer families moved from one quintile of the income ladder to a higher one during the 1980’s than during the 1970’s, and that fewer still moved up in the 1990’s than the 1980’s.A second, even larger study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics also found that mobility declined during the latter period.
Even though the economic upturn of the late 1990’s lifted pay rates for low-income jobs such as janitor and clerk, most occupants of those positions remained there—they were still janitors and clerks at the end of the boom years. Between 1973 and 2000, the real income of the bottom 90 percent of American workers actually fell by 7 percent.
Although family income rose slightly during some of that period, much of the rise was due to the entry of wives into the paid labor force and men working longer hours or at second jobs.
Inequality in the United States has risen to levels not seen since the Gilded Age of railroad and steel robber barons, and exceeds that of Europe or Canada.
According to one scholar, “being born in the U.S. gives you a constellation of privileges that very few . . . in the world have ever experienced. Being born poor in the U.S. gives you disadvantages unlike anything in Western Europe and Japan and Canada.”
http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/issues/68/68.4/Delgado.pdf
What an incredible source!! The Opinion of a University of Pittsburgh SECOND YEAR LAW STUDENT – I don’t know how I will recover from dealing with his unsubtantiated opinions. (fake faint)
What was that you were saying the other day about people dismissing sources out of hand?
Yes, you just casually dismissed Anonster’s source. Do you hold yours up as “gospel”?
I interview, hire and train law students on a daily basis – I am a pretty good judge of the difference between what they know and what they think. If I was dismissing the University of Pittsburgh as a source, THEN I would have been dismissing the source out of hand.
That’s a distinction without a difference.
Really? Attacking the credentials of someone providing their unsubstantiated opinion is EXACTLY the same as attacking the University of Pittsburgh? You obviously don’t think highly about the University of Pittsburgh.
No. It’s your hypocrisy that I don’t think highly of.
” I don’t know how I will recover from dealing with his unsubtantiated opinions.”
Geoff,
I wonder HOW MANY Law Review articles you have had published?
Maybe you’re just not familiar with the process, how else to explain the fact that you “missed” the 225 footnotes;
1. See infra Part I (“Upward Striving in Myth and Narrative”).
879
2. On the precariousness of upward mobility, see infra Part III (“Upward Mobility in American Society”). On the worsening distribution of income and wealth, stagnant real wages, and the tenuousness of middle-class status, see Juliet Schor, As Public Goods Decay and Democracy Wanes, the Populace is Offered SUVs, Malls, and Debts, BOSTON REV., Sept./Oct. 2005 [hereinafter Democracy Wanes].
3. See infra note 17 and accompanying text. 4. See infra notes 16, 23, 183, 186-90 and accompanying text. 5. See infra Part IIA (discussing MICHAEL GRAETZ & IAN SHAPIRO, DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS:
THE FIGHT OVER TAXING INHERITED WEALTH (2005) [hereinafter DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS]. See also DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS at 6-7, 118-20 (noting that may Americans expect, unrealistically, to die rich).
6. See text and notes 18-19, infra; DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 6-7, 118-20 (noting that many Americans expect to die rich).
7. See DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5.
8. 9. 10.
CHARLES MURRAY, IN OUR HANDS: A PLAN TO REPLACE THE WELFARE STATE (2006). See infra Part IIB (discussing Murray’s book and plan in further detail). 349 U.S. 294 (1954).
882 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 68:879
This Essay begins by surveying the myth of upward mobility and the part it plays in popular culture.11 Next, it discusses the two books mentioned above, showing how they rest on contrasting views about human agency and the possibility of rapid social advance.12 It then reviews social science studies of the extent of social mobility in the United States and shows how the legal system has helped construct its own version of it.13 A brief conclusion proposes a new narrative of working-class solidarity to replace the myth of upward mobility.
11. See infra Part I. 12. See infra Part II. 13. See infra Part III. 14. See, e.g., Robert B. Reich, Story Time, NEW REPUB., Mar. 28 & Apr. 4, 2005,
15. For example, blacks, who were enslaved; Indians, who were removed from their ancestral homes and exterminated; and Japanese-Americans, who suffered internment during WW II.
16. See infra Part III (“Upward Mobility in American Society”). See also Paul Krugman, Losing Our Country, N.Y. TIMES, June 10, 2005, at A23 (middle-class status is increasingly insecure for most
17. See Peter Edelman, Where Race Meets Class: The 21st Century Civil Rights Agenda, 12 GEO. J. POV. L. & POL. 1, 3 (noting that “Two explanations for the . . . disparities compete. One is the classic American explanation—‘it’s their own fault. Horatio Alger’s heroes made it, why didn’t they?’”) [hereinafter Edelman, Race Meets Class].
18. JENNIFER L. HOCHSCHILD, FACING UP TO THE AMERICAN DREAM: RACE, CLASS, AND THE SOUL OF THE NATION 72-73 (1996); see also JIM CULLEN, THE AMERICAN DREAM: A SHORT HISTORY OF AN IDEA THAT SHAPED A NATION 6 (2003) [hereinafter CULLEN, DREAM].
19. Blacks overall enjoy some of the least upward mobility of any group, with even the achievement of middle-class status insecure. See Edelman, Race Meets Class, supra note 17, at 6 (noting that median income of young African-American families dropped 48% between 1973 and 1990 and that “Things continued to get worse.” Id.). Black families have, on average, little savings, see MELVIN L. OLIVER & THOMAS M. SHAPIRO, BLACK WEALTH, WHITE WEALTH: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON RACIAL INEQUALITY (1995), so that many find themselves living from payday to payday, depending on two or more incomes to make ends meet, and maintaining high levels of credit card debt. A relative’s arrest or loss of a single job in a two-earner family can send a family into a downward spiral from which it may never recover. When that downward spiral starts, pawnbrokers, loan sharks, and predatory lenders, ever present in minority neighborhoods, are quick to take advantage of the family’s vulnerability.
20. See CULLEN, DREAM, supra note 18, at 40, 47-48, 57.
21. See RALPH WALDO EMERSON, SELF-RELIANCE (1841).
22. See, e.g., JUAN PEREA ET AL., RACE AND RACES: RESOURCES AND MATERIALS FOR A DIVERSE AMERICA (2000) (discussing the often-suppressed legal histories of four racial minority groups of color); Tom Ross, The Rhetoric of Poverty: Their Immorality, Our Helplessness, 79 GEO. L.J. 1499 (1991).
23. See, e.g., HORATIO ALGER, RAGGED DICK AND MARK, THE MATCH BOY (Two Novels) (1962); ALAN HOWARD, DICK WHITTINGTON AND HIS CAT (1948) (telling the much-told tale of a poor farm boy from Gloucestershire who walked to London to seek his fortune and eventually became Lord Mayor of that city); Charles McGrath, In Fiction, A Long History of Fixation on the Social Gap, N.Y. TIMES, June 8, 2005, at B1 (discussing upward mobility in popular myth and fiction) [hereinafter McGrath, In Fiction].
Upward striving can take a dark turn. See, e.g., THEODORE DREISER, AMERICAN TRAGEDY (1925), telling about an upward-striving main character who drowns his lower-class sweetheart and winds up in the electric chair. See also Curtis Sittenfeld, Prep (2005), describing a blue-collar child smoldering with class resentment at a fancy private school); SCOTT FITZGERALD, THE GREAT GATSBY (1923) (telling a similar story of greed-fueled upward striving).
24. See Frank Rich, When You Got It, Flaunt It, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 23, 2003, at 1.
25. See CULLEN, DREAM, supra note 18, at 177; McGrath, In Fiction, supra note 23, at E4 (describing role of reality TV in shaping the aspirations of middle-class viewers).
26. CULLEN, DREAM, supra note 18, at 160 (noting that the reward comes instantaneously, not gradually through hard work); McGrath, In Fiction, supra note 23. See also James Poniewozik & Jeanne McDowell, When You Wish Upon a Star, TIME, June 13, 2005, at 48 [hereinafter Poniewozik & McDowell, Star].
27. In these stories, the key to success is “lifestyle”—a cluster of attitudes and styles of consumption—not effort. This type of coverage, which only started to appear regularly in the Reagan years and is not limited to the black press, downplays effort and persistence in favor of talent and destiny. Entertainers, media stars, and sports figures appear to have moved naturally and with little effort into their starring roles. Cf. CULLEN, DREAM, supra note 18, at 177. On the cruel trap of investing all of one’s hopes in a career in sports, see Hoop Dreams (Front Line Features, 1994).
28. Poniewozik & McDowell, Star, supra note 26, at 48. 29. See infra Part IV (“The Official Construction of Upward Mobility”). 30. Cited in full supra note 5.
31. Id. at 14-15, 74-85, 123-25, 229, 232, 235, 253-55. 32. Id.at1,3. 33. Id. at 20, 62-72, 172-73, 239. 34. Id. at 7-10, 12-23, 42-43, 74-75, 78, 80-81, 130, 140-41, 213-14. 35. See MURRAY, supra note 8.
36. Id. at 1, 8-14. 37. DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 5-6. 38. Id. at 5-6. 39. Id. at 5. 40. Id. at 6.
41. Id. 42. Id. 43. Id. 44. Id. 45. David Runciman, Tax Breaks for Rich Murderers, LONDON REV. BOOKS, June 2005, at 27
[hereinafter Runciman, Rich Murderers]. 46. DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 7-10, 12-23, 42-43, 74-75, 78, 80-81, 130. 47. Id. at 239-57. 48. Id. at 10.31
50. Id. at 20, 62-72, 172-73. 51. Id. at 20, 72. 52. Id. at 20, 42-43, 62-73, 94, 126, 172. 53. Id. at 20, 80-83. 54. See text and note 31, 33-34 supra. 55. DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 20. 56. Id. at 46-48, 239, 256-58. 57. Id. at 176. 58. Id. at 8, 54.
By presenting horror
Id. at 8, 43, 51-54, 57-61, 63-66. See text and notes 65-73 infra, noting that this is not unusual; our system does it all the time. DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 50-61. Id. at 50-66. Id. at 172. Id. at 70-72, 172-76. Id.; see also CHARLES OGLETREE, ALL DELIBERATE SPEED 195-96 (2005) (noting that, at a
59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.
66. DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 72.
Savannah State College, Clarence Thomas spoke approvingly of how a certain black business
67. Id. at 62-66. 68. Id. at 65-66. 69. Id. at 6. 70. Id. at 6, 7, 119-20. 71. Id. at 253.
72. Id. at 7, 21-22.
73. See Runciman, Rich Murderers, supra note 45, noting how some advocates of repeal conjured up the image of the IRS hovering at the bedside, in the garments of the Grim Reaper, waiting for the dearly- beloved to die so that the agency can get its cut.
74. Id.
75. Thigpen is the African-American farmer mentioned immediately above. See also id. at 41 (mentioning the case of Representative Jennifer Dunn, a single mother who raised two boys alone).
76. E.g., id. at 255. Repeal zealots failed to mention that we do this all the time. For example, the same person can have to pay income, consumption, capital gains, and gift tax—all on the same money.
77. Runciman, Rich Murderers, supra note 45, quoting anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist. See also id. at 140-41, 213-14 (same), 236 (noting that some Americans actually found this argument credible).
78. DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 85-98. 79. Id. at 19-20, 120-30, 254-55. 80. Id. at 99-106, 259-65. 81. Id. at 34-40, 45-47, 134, 216, 259-60.
82. Id. at 36. 83. Id. at 116, 129, 168, 246-47. 84. Id. at 115-16, 133-34, 247. 85. Id. at 201-02.
86. Id. at 28, 270-71, 273-77. 87. Id. at 4, 10, 266-82. 88. Id. at 266-82. 89. RICHARD J.HERRNSTEIN &CHARLES A.MURRAY,THE BELL CURVE: INTELLIGENCE AND CLASS
STRUCTURE IN AMERICAN LIFE (1994) [hereinafter HERRNSTEIN & MURRAY, BELL CURVE]. 90. CHARLES A. MURRAY, LOSING GROUND: AMERICAN SOCIAL POLICY, 1950-1980 (1984).
91. See Mr. Murray’s entry on The American Enterprise Institute’s website (AEI Online), http:// http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23481/pub_detail.asp (last visited May 29, 2006). See also remarks of Chris DeMuth, in id. (Book Forum); Charles Murray, Sex Ed at Harvard, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 23, 2005, at A17 (Op. Ed.).
92. See MURRAY, supra note 8.
93. Id. 94. Id. 95. Id. 96. Id. 97. Id. 98. Id. 99. Id.
at 2-4, 59-60, 62-64, 66-70. at 1.
at 1, 24-71. at 1, 24-36. at 1, 2, 8-14. at 8-14; see also Charles Murray, The $10,000 Solution, in AEI Online, supra note 91
(describing his plan as aimed at what the left and the right would consider common ground).
100. MURRAY, supra note 8, at 9-14, Appendix A. 101. Id. at 12. 102. Id. at 37-51. 103. Id. at 24-37.
104. Id. at 52-61. 105. Id. at 101-10. 106. Id. at 53-54, 57-58, 95-100, 111-24. 107. Id. at 24-88. 108. Id. at 89, 93-94. 109. Id. at 40-49, 51. 110. Id. at 17, 40, 42-46.
111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117.
wisdom”).
Id. at 81-124. Id. at 83-85, 89-94. Id. at 95-124. Id. at 92-94, 117-24. Id. at 116-17. 42 U.S.C.A. § 601 (2005). DeMuth,supranote91(describingMurray’sviewas“wellonitswaytobecomingconventional
118. See MURRAY, supra note 8, at 125-27. 119. See supra Part IIA (discussing DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS). 120. E.g., DeMuth, supra note 91. See also id. at xii, 8 (mentioning role of Friedman and Stigler in
championing a negative income tax). 121. MURRAY, supra note 8, at 15-22, Appendices A-E. 122. Id. at 11. 123. Id. at 72-81. 124. Id. at 73-78. 125. DeMuth, supra note 91 (placing this interpretation on Murray’s discussion of work incentives).
See also Charles Murray, A Plan to Replace the Welfare State, WALL ST. J., Mar. 22, 2006 (also in AEI Online, supra note 91)
126. MURRAY, supra note 8, at 18-21. 127. Id. at 21. 128. Id. at 10. 129. Id. at 14. 130. See remarks of Jonathan Routh, in AEI Online (Book Forum), supra note 91. See also
MURRAY, supra note 8, at 5 (implying the same).
131. See HERRNSTEIN & MURRAY, BELL CURVE, supra note 89.
132. Murray believes that human happiness comes from taking responsibility for one’s fate, being in control of one’s finances and time, and not relying on others for vital services or needs. But if he means this as an empirical assertion, it is open to doubt. European citizens report high levels of satisfaction with their lives even though they pay high taxes, visit state-sponsored medical clinics, take long vacations, and live in houses much like those of their neighbors. Cf. Janny Scott & David Leonhardt, Class in America: Shadowy Lines That Still Divide, N.Y. TIMES, May 15, 2005, at A1 [hereinafter Scott & Leonhardt, Shadowy Lines].
133. MURRAY, supra note 8, at 16.
134. See Part III, infra (“Upward Mobility in American Society”). 135. See infra Part IV (“Official Construction of Upward Mobility”).
136. See Scott & Leonhardt, Shadowy Lines, supra note 132, at A1 (noting that researchers believe upward mobility in the United States may be declining).
137. OndownwardmobilityforAfricanAmericans,seeDebraB.McBrier&GeorgeWilson,Going Down? Race and Downward Mobility for White-Collar Workers in the 1990s, 3 WORK & OCCUPATION 283 (2004). On the painfully slow upward climb of Latino immigrants, often requiring four generations or more, see Anthony DePalma, 15 Years on the Bottom Rung: Mexican Immigrants and the Specter of an Enduring Under Class, N.Y. TIMES, May 26, 2005, at A1. On the stagnating fortunes of the middle class, see text and notes 1-2, 16, 18-19 supra, 139, 157, 167-70 infra.
138. See Laurence J. Kotliff & Lawrence H. Summers, The Role of Intergenerational Transfer in Aggregate Wealth Accumulation, 84 J. POL. ECON. 4 (1981); Daria Roithmayr, Them That Has, Gets (unpublished, on file with author); DALTON CONLEY, BEING BLACK 47 (1999).
139. Various reports place this figure as between one and two percent. E.g., Gary Solon, Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United States, 82 AM. ECON. REV. 3 (1992); Who’s Classier?, CHRON. HIGHER ED., June 1, 2005 (Careers) (reporting figure of one to two percent).
140. E.g., Edelman, Race Meets Class, supra note 17, at 5.
141. See FREDERICK R. STROBEL & WALLACE C. PETERSON, THE COMING CLASS WAR AND HOW TO AVOID IT: REBUILDING THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS 111-12 (1999).
142. Scott & Leonhardt, Shadowy Lines, supra note 132, at A17. 143. Id.
144. James Lardner, Upward Mobility Should Get Easier, Not Harder: More People are Stuck Running in Place, at http:www.progress.org/2004/labor06.htm (last visited July 27, 2005) [hereinafter Lardner, Easier Not Harder].
145. PaulKrugman,TheDeathofHoratioAlger,OurPoliticalLeadersareDoingEverythingThey Can to Fortify Class Inequality, THE NATION, Jan. 5, 2004 [hereinafter Krugman, Death of Horatio Alger]. 146. Id. See also David Cay Johnston, Richest are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind, N.Y. TIMES, June 5, 2005, at A1, A17 [hereinafter Johnston, Richest are Leaving], noting that “economic mobility—moving from one income group to another over a lifetime—has actually stopped rising in the United States . . . . Some recent studies suggest it has even declined over the last generation”; Geraldine Fabrikant, Old Nantucket Warily Meets the New, N.Y. TIMES, June 5, 2005, at A1 (describing mores of the
new “hyper-rich” class). 147. Krugman, Losing our Country, supra note 16. 148. Krugman, Death of Horatio Alger, supra note 145. 149. See Woody Holland, Money at the Top: Let’s Tax Inheritances of the Rich Since Corporate
Capitalism Leaves Out “Less-Skilled” Workers, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Nov. 8, 2005, at E8 [hereinafter Holland, Capitalism Leaves Out].
150. Scott & Lenhardt, Shadowy Lines, supra note 132, at A17. 151. Id., quoting Professor David I. Levine, UC-Berkeley economist and mobility researcher.
152. Lardner, Easier Not Harder, supra note 144. See also David Brooks, The Education Gap, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 25, 2005, at 11 (same) [hereinafter Brooks, The Education Gap].
153. Lardner, Easier Not Harder, supra note 144. 154. Brooks, The Education Gap, supra note 152. 155. David Brooks, Pillars of Cultural Capital, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 6, 2005, at A35. 156. Id. 157. See David Leonhardt, The College Dropout Boom: Working Class and Staying That Way, N.Y.
TIMES, May 24, 2005, at A1, A18 [hereinafter Leonhardt, Dropout Boom]. 158. Id.
159. David Brooks, Karl’s New Manifesto, N.Y. TIMES, May 29, 2005, at 11. 160. Id. 161. Leonhardt, Dropout Boom, supra note 157.
162. Ever Higher in Society, Ever Hard to Ascend: Meritocracy in America, ECONOMIST, Jan. 1, 2005 (online at http://www.lexisnexiscom/lawschool).
171. See supra Part IIA.
172. STROBEL & PETERSON, supra note 141, at 146-48 (explaining how the rules of the mortgage interest deduction favor the wealthy).
173. See Johnston, Richest are Leaving, supra note 146, at 17.
174. Id., pointing out that “The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America.”
175. The Bush Economy: New Hope for the Fabulously Wealthy, N.Y. TIMES, June 7, 2005, at A22. 176. Krugman, Losing our Country, supra note 16. 177. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003d, 2, tbl. 1).
178. United Nations Human Development Programme, Human Poverty Index 249 (2003).
179. LEE RAINWATER & TIMOTHY M. SMEEDING, POOR KIDS IN A RICH COUNTRY: AMERICAN CHILDREN IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES 21 (2003). Rainwater and Smeeding also found that U.S. children are likely to be poor longer than in other countries they studied and less apt to move out of poverty, Rainwater & Smeeding, id.
180. Id. at 67.
181. See Tamar Lewin, Up from the Holler: Living in Two Worlds, At Home in Neither, N.Y. TIMES, May 19, 2005, at A1 [hereinafter Lewin, Up from the Holler]; THIS FINE PLACE SO FAR FROM HOME (C.L. Barney Dews & Carolyn Leste Law eds., 1995) [hereinafter FINE PLACE]; Carolyn Alessio, When College Advising Must Cross Cultural Gaps, CHRON. HIGHER ED., July 7, 2006 (Admissions & Student Aid).
182. E.g., FINE PLACE, supra note 181; Lewin, Up from the Holler, supra note 181, at A18 (describing a child from a poor family in Appalachia who left for college and law school: “But Ms. Justice still felt like an outsider. Her co-editors on the law review . . . all seemed to have a wealth of information that had passed her by.”).
183. See sources cited supra note 177. See also Matthew H. Gendle, Moving on Up, CHRON. HIGHER ED. (CAREERS), Apr. 13, 2006.
184. See Scott & David Leonhardt, Shadowy Lines, supra note 132. See also DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, supra note 5, at 119-20; text at supra note 16.
185. See Scott & Leonhardt, Shadowy Lines, supra note 132, at 16.
2007]
186. See supra Part IIA. 187. Scott & Leonhardt, Shadowy Lines, supra note 132, at A17. 188. Id. 189. See supra Part III. 190. See text and notes 3-5, supra.
191. SeeRepublicanParty,TheContractwithAmerica,availableathttp://www.house.gov/?contract/ CONTRACT.html.
192. See supra Part IIA.
193. 42 U.S.C. § 601 (2005). See The White House, Remarks by President Clinton at Signing of Personal Responsibility Act, M2 Presswire (online), Aug. 23, 1996.
194. E.g., Edelman, Race Meets Class, supra note 17. See also http://www.foodfirst.org/?welfare .factsheet (last visited May 31, 2006).
2007]
195. See, e.g., MANUEL GONZALEZ & RICHARD DELGADO, THE POLITICS OF FEAR: REPUBLICAN ASCENDANCY IN AMERICA (forthcoming 2006).
196. Address Before the Federalist Society, Sept. 22, 1995 (available online at http://www.courttv.com/?archive/legaldocs/rights/thomas.html).
197. Economic Affairs as Human Affairs, 4 CATO J. 703, 709 (1985).
198. Justice William Douglas, for example, wrote that his mother knew poverty in “the Middle Eastern, African, and Latin-American sense of the word.” WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS, GO EAST YOUNG MAN 8 (1974).
199. 405 U.S. 56 (1972).
910 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 68:879
200. Id. at 74. 201. Id. 202. Id. at 86-87 (Douglas, J., dissenting). 203. 411 U.S. 1 (1973). 204. Id. at 40. 205. Id. at 30, 35. 206. Id. at 71 (Marshall, J., dissenting).
2007]
207. See, e.g., text and notes 134-35, 145-56, supra. 208. 397 U.S. 471 (1970). 209. Id. at 484. 210. Id. at 473-75.
211. Id. at 485-86. 212. Id. 213. U.S.C.A. §§ 1601-96. 214. U.S.C.A. §§ 6301-7941. 215. E.g., Pat K. Chew & Robert E. Kelley, Unwrapping Racial Harassment Law, 27 BERKELEY J.
EMP. & LAB. L. 49 (2006). 216. On the glass ceiling see, e.g., STEPHEN J. MCNAMEE & ROBERT K. MILLER, JR., THE
MERITOCRACY MYTH 169-71 (2004); U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission, A Solid Investment: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Human Capital (Final Rep. of the Comm. 1995), available at http://digitalcommons .ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/120.
912 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 68:879
7224
217. See text and notes 14, 25-28, supra, 218-20 infra (describing “vertical aspiration”).
218. See Jennifer Steinhauser, When the Joneses Wear Jeans: Signs of Status are Harder to Spot, N.Y. TIMES, May 29, 2005, at 12-13 [hereinafter Steinhauser, Wear Jeans].
219. Id.
220. Id. See also note 14 supra (describing how “lifestyle” aspiration and consumption are replacing the hard-work variety). See also MTV’s popular “MTV Cribs,” in which hip hop artists, athletes, and other celebrities show off their multi-million dollar homes, stable of luxury cars, and other expensive possessions.
221. Steinhauser, Wear Jeans, supra note 218, at 12-13. See also Steinhauser, Wear Jeans, supra note 218, at 13.
222. Id. at 12-13. 223. See ANDREW HACKER, MONEY: WHO HAS HOW MUCH AND WHY 41 (1997). 224. See 20 Nation Poll Finds Strong Global Consensus: Support for Free Market System, But Also
More Regulation of Large Companies, http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/?articles/ btglobalizationtradera/154.php?nid=&id=&pnt=154 (last visited June 7, 2006).
225. See JOSEPH CAMPBELL, THE POWER OF MYTH 8-9 (1988).
BONUS ARTICLES;
Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend
Whatever happened to the belief that any American could get to the top?
http://www.economist.com/node/3518560
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/11/12/report-shows-stagnant-upward-mobility-in-us/
“An even better example than the gallon of milk would be a gallon of gas”…. Hmmmm
Wrong! I buy gas myself 87 oct. in lowest price gas station which I know of about $4.00.
1% have a driver to go by it at Supper.
So the the gallon of gas costs 1% about $40.0
again my cot of living at 10% increase will be $.40 and 1% 4.0
What education do you have Onan?
You spell probably better than I do but otherwise you are uneducated.
You are forgetting an overhead cost which is astronomical for 1%
Stanley, again…pay attention now…buying a Mercedes vs. buying a Toyota is TOTALLY DISCRETIONARY. A rich person does not HAVE to buy a Mercedes. So having more expensive brakes is strictly a matter of choice…not a cost of living increase.
There are many, many items that are far, far less discretionary. When those items rise in cost, they impact virtually everyone. Go ahead, live in your house without electricity these days and let us know how you like it.
But everyone HAS to buy gasoline to put in their car, or buy electricity. When those goes up, THAT is a cost of living increase. An increase that a rich person hardly notices, but a poor person does.
I rest my case.
I cant argue with moron mongoloids.
The wealthy don’t pay taxes, they have employees to do that for them.
The neat trick is getting Labor to fight almongs themselves over who pays the most tax on labor.
I forgot something.
mooooo
Correct cook!
So do not the Corporations pay taxes, their consumers do!
Once the liberals will understand that then the economy will start moving forward.
If your corporation is big enough, you pay no taxes. Like Exxon
And don’t forget hedge fund managers who pay only 15% on their income. How is that fair.
They do not pay 15% of their income – they pay 15% of their capital gains – completely different. They often structure their income in the form of capital gains vs. income, but that is an entirely different issue. People generally confuse income, wealth and return on investment which are three seperate analysis. When they turn to taxes, the left seems to focus on income which is already oppressively taxed and ignore wealth and investment which get the most loopholes.
The whole “Warren Buffet Rule” – although it’s sometimes misstated and misunderstood – is that “INVESTMENT RETURN” (which you for some reason don’t want to call “income”) should be taxed at the same level as WAGES. If you’re in agreement with us libs on that, then that is a HUGE area of agreement, and welcome!
I don’t have a strong opinion on capital gains and would have no objection to combining the income and capital gains rates. I have always argued to fair treatment and I see a tightrope here between investment and taxation. If we were going to lower the top income rate while combining that rate with the capital gains rate, I would have no problem with that.
I am not ignoring the “investment” loophole which hedge fund managers use to re-brand their income as “capital gains”. It’s a scam.
Next you’re going to tell everyone that tax breaks for the wealthy create jobs.
Upper income tax rates are at their lowest rates in your and my lifetime, and the top 1% has seen their wealth triple in the last 30 years , while everybody else treads water (source:CBO report 10/21/11).
Who pays you to make these lame remarks ?
I think that you might be a shill for money and don’t believe any of what you profess.
I am paid BIG BIG bucks for my comments here. The Juice influences the NYSE, the NASDAQ and the Chicago Commodities Exchange and an alliance of the major players of those groups pays me $600 per line to post here.
Do you claim that as capital gains or income?
That would be income and is unfortunately taxed at a 100% rate.
Interesting point of view – I do not spam, I do post links to some of my stories once and only once. I believe that the stories that I link fall squarely within the rants and raves description. I am not advertising, I am ranting and raving. If you don’t agree with my opinion – I really don’t care – move your mouse onto the next entry.
Oh, whoops, I got rid of the comment you are replying to because it didn’t make any sense to me. Couldn’t tell WHO this Joe guy was accusing of “spamming rants,” the guy had his caplocks on, and he incomprehensibly said that he was going to always “flag” somebody.
I can’t believe I missed this Platonic Athens-level colluquy this afternoon!
Impressive use of cut and paste and such scholarly sources as MTV Cribs and Keeping Up With The Kardashians. I remain impressed.
Geoff,
Obviously you “dismissed” Mr. Delgado and his article without bothering to read it, now you’re picking a couple of insignificant sources out to “dismiss” his research.
Your faux bluster is pathetic.
So Mr. Super Smug Smarty Pants, I’ll ask again, HOW MANY LAW REVIEW ARTICLES HAVE YOU WRITTEN?
Geoff is like his man Rick Perry…ask him a straight question that he decides he doesn’t like and he’ll just answer a different question.
You’re so right, bobbin’ and weavin’, duckin’ and dodgin’.
Geoff loves to state his opinions like their fact and when you call him out and prove him wrong, he either attacks you personally or dismisses your sources and facts out of hand, yet he RARELY if ever, tries the obvious strategy, which would be to back up HIS OPINIONS with facts and sources.
As they say in Texass, “all hat and no cattle”.
Another great example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Newbie,
What total bullshit, the one thing I do, do, is link to or paste to substantiating facts and opinions.
Right-wing stratergy;
Lie, repeat, lie, repeat, lie, repeat, lie, repeat, lie, repeat,lie…………..ad infinitum.
Anonster, your “substantiating facts” are universally bs and when you are caught red handd you change the subject. I will give you credit, it is effective rhetoric that when you are caught in the midst of lies, accuse the other side of the same thing to distract attention from your labor union lies.
Geoff,
Still smarting from your huge display of IGNORANCE, I see.
You still haven’t answered my question; HOW MANY LAW REVIEW ARTICLES HAVE YOU WRITTEN AND HAVE HAD PUBLISHED?
I guess from your deafening silence, that answer would be NONE.
Anonster, you hide behind the cloak of anonymity (a cloak which I could remove and reveal your identity at any time but choose not to) and then you try and attack me because I have disclosed my identity. No, I have not written a law review article – I actually had to work during law school and had no interest in being a professor. I did argue before the Ninth Circuit and California Supreme Court in my first three years of practice, creating new law in published cases both times – I think that you will find that a far rarer and more prestigious accomplishment than a simple law review article. I hesitated responding to this silly attack because it makes me defend my credentials to someone who hides behind a secret identity therefore making it impossible to talk about her non-existent credentials.
Geoff,
Good try at a DODGE, but my credentials here mean NOTHING, I have NEVER pretended to be ANYTHING but an opinionated blogger, YOU are the one who set YOURSELF UP as the oh-so-knowledgeable and pompous judge of what is unsubstantiated opinion and what is research.
YOU are the one who said;
” The Opinion of a University of Pittsburgh SECOND YEAR LAW STUDENT …”
“I interview, hire and train law students on a daily basis – I am a pretty good judge of the difference between what they know and what they think.”
Geoff,
The more I think about it, the more OFFENSIVE your argument/whine becomes.
You, in all your indignation want to “out” me because you want to ‘prove’ somehow, that my opinion isn’t as valid as yours.
Hey, buddy, it’s the FUCKING INTERNET and this is a FUCKING BLOG, you are as free as I am to google up information to support your OPINIONS, just because your a big fat fucking lawyer DOES NOT mean that your OPINION is any more valid than ANYONE ELSE’S.
If you’re proven to be an ignorant pompous ass, it’s because you probably are an IGNORANT POMPOUS ASS!
Once again, GW comes on to complain about the suffering of the rich, and blames the country’s woes on those least empowered. He yet again talks about 47% of people not paying income tax, and even if true, igonres the fact that most of the country’s wealth is in the hands of the few, and their legacied progeny who wither at the thought of paying a fair share towards the USA’s well being while still living profligate lifestyles..
Geoff, for once, stop dodging the question–are you in favor of this country as a third world country? A place in which significant amounts of people live in shanty towns, while the very few bathe in champagne and have private jets at their disposal to run off in case the rabble rise up? Are you fine with schools being defunded, libraries closed, roads going to hell, and the air and water made unusable because of lack of regulatory oversight?
You never, ever address these points, so at least have the intellectual courage and integrity to do so. Otherwise, maybe you should go off to other places to preach to your respective choir.
I have added up my accounts and come to the conclusion that I have not received my fair share.
So dear readers, I am asking you to dig deep and pay me the balance of my fair share that you owe me.
Cash is king, but I will accept checks, spell my name with these four letters, C – A – S – H.,
Vern knows where I be, so past the envelopes of cash and checks to him for delivery.
Oh and this is a important public service announcement:
Military Tribute Days
November 1 – November 24
Knott’s annual tribute to our Military, past and present, starts November 1st. FREE admission for Veterans or current serving military personnel and one guest with proper I.D. presented at turnstile. (DD214, Veterans Administration Hospital ID or Active Military Service ID.) Plus purchase up to six additional tickets for just $17 each!