Who creates the disparity in the U.S.? Me, maybe you. My wife and I made a good income. We sent our kids to private schools, paid for the college education, leaving them with little college debt. Was that a bad thing? No. Did it give my sons an advantage over many Americans? Yes. Does that mean that they have information-driven jobs? Yes. Good incomes? Yes. Will they pass on the same to their children? Yes. And my parents did the same for me. There’s no evil in any of this. Nothing prejudicial. It leaves us, meaning those in the top 30%, with a social obligation. We need to help those in the remaining 70%. It would be easy: Vote to increase taxes on all families earning more than $150,000 progressively until you reach the top 1 percent. As New York Times columnist David Brooks noted: “The top 20 percent is not going to stop spending heavily on their kids. We have to give the bottom 80 percent the resources to do the same.”
One way: Encourage Congress to pass a living wage act.
There’s even more to be done.
Watch our representatives in Congress.
Recently Congress passed a bill to help small businesses. Some representatives tacked on several other provisions as noted in the New York Times:
"One provision tucked into the federal economic-rescue law increases the amount of deductions companies are permitted to take on the interest they pay on large quantities of debt. Only companies with at least $25 million in annual receipts can qualify for that break.Another change lets people deduct even more of their businesses’ losses from any winnings they reaped in the stock market, sharply reducing what they owe in capital gains taxes. Only households earning at least $500,000 a year — the top 1 percent of American taxpayers — are eligible.
"And yet another provision in last month’s rescue package allows companies to deduct losses in one year against profits that they earned years earlier. The tax break most likely won’t put any extra cash directly into the hands of companies hit by the current crisis for at least a year."
We must recognize that some politicians are helping the rich get richer, thereby denying opportunities to most Americans.
Meanwhile, companies that spent billions on stock buybacks and dividends, each enriching shareholders including many executives, have asked for aid under the Covid-19 rescue package for businesses. As noted in another Times article: “The crisis has exposed the potential failings of a strategy embraced by many big companies: aligning their priorities with the interests of shareholders, many of whom are narrowly focused on the performance of a company’s shares. Shareholders, wanting stock prices to go higher, pushed management to use up cash on buybacks and dividends. And senior executives, paid largely in stock and on the basis of how the stock performed, were happy to oblige. The result was that companies often didn’t have much spare cash, leaving them even more exposed to economic downturns.”
Naturally companies have the right to do what they can legally to ensure a return for their stockholders. Why should they receive rescue help when they have exhausted resources in order to enrich their shareholders, already an enriched group. The nation is spending trillions to stem the health and economic impact of the pandemic. Taxes will have to go up. Why inflate the debt with contributions to individuals and companies that don’t need it?