The big problem is the 1%'s lobbying power, and lobbying to increase/lift political spending, or these super pacs
Money is just playing way too large of role in the politics of the people
I think if we could fix democracy to be more fair the inequalities of wealth would reduce, but that is a steep up hill battle given the power they have :)
Does it? Generally speaking, you make money with money, right? So even if playing "fairly", it would seem the 1% will still get far more rich far faster than anyone else. Lobbying only slows that down some, if at all.
Don't get me wrong, I think Lobbying in its current form is disgusting. Yet, directly I don't blame it for the wealth gap.
I suppose you could argue that lawmakers might have a chance at proposing solutions if not for lobbying, so by taking lobbying away you eventually, somehow, fix the problem. Even with that said, I'm still more curious to talk about possible solutions to the problem directly, rather than hoping to foster an environment where someone else will fix the problem.
We need to address the problem at its heart which is the separation of wealth. If there weren't huge players with lots of money to throw at the election (people and corporations), or if at least everyone had the same opportunity to do so, then a lot of those problems would be somewhat relieved.
unequal distribution of wealth ==
unequal distribution of money ==
unequal distribution of power !=
democracy
It's never been directly about the top 1%. It's about politicians and legislation that don't favor the general public. Years of such legislation have led to a top 1% having a disproportionate amount of wealth and a general public that is getting dumber, sicker, and poorer.
I think opposition to legislation that favor the rich is often confused with opposition to the rich directly.
This confusion is exactly what undermines our ability to focus on real problems and progress.
I personally don't care much that these people are wealthy or even able to evade paying as much taxes as we do. The problem I have, and the problem I think the author is trying to expose is that DUE to their wealth, these top 0.1% are able to exert a vastly disproportionate amount of influence on our political and legal system, often times to the detriment of the other 99.9% of us, and preventing politicians from making the level headed, balanced decisions they need to make.
Even if the people as a organized collective can get together to rally against a certain issue, and even if that group can win, anybody with lobbying power (e.g. money) can simply lobby again at a later time to throw in some rider on a completely unrelated bill to pass some law getting what they want.
The main problem is in political representation. In a democracy, everyone should count as one vote. The natural desire of the population is to have better education and health care, for example, that can lift the standing of the whole society. When a small minority has a disproportionate amount of wealth, they can relatively easily bend politics to their personal wishes. In the US this presents itself in politicians who vote for their wealthy donors to receive tax breaks, the rise of chartered schools, and the fight against public health care.
Well, that's one kind of 1%. Then there's the other kind that has enough money and uses it to amass power in domains outside of their core business. Think Koch brothers, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch. Think large donors and Super-PACs. Think politicians that, despite financial security, wield their power not for the masses but for the handful of people that will finance their next campaign instead. This is all enabled by money but going well past pure profit.
Even where only profit is concerned, there are downsides to concentrating the power in the 1%. Tax laws getting optimized for growth of capital over redistribution, loopholes large enough to allow for intergenerational dynasties over equal opportunity, copyright getting extended to a hundred years with free-use exceptions getting killed left and right.
I see your point and the likes of Gates (post-Microsoft) would make a positive difference. On the other hand, I'd prefer Joe Biden over Peter Thiel. It's very much a case-by-case kind of thing.
Income inequality is not the problem, it's a shorthand for the real problem, which is the mutual reinforcement of wealth inequality and political corruption. Rich people use their disposable income to buy political influence which they then use to get laws passed that allow them to collect rents.
The solution is to 1) roll back the corrupt laws (like the preferential tax treatment of carried interest and high-speed trading) and 2) get rid of the absurd legal doctrine established by the Citizens United decision that money=speech and hence the First Amendment applies to bribery.
The amounts of money that float back and fourth in america's top 1% is excessive. I'm not sure if this issue fits here but lately it feels like it fits everywhere. Start voting for people that will do something to fix wealth disparity.
The two problems are one and the same. Massive disparities of wealth create massive disparities of political power. Concentrated wealth then funds political efforts to keep their bought-and-paid-for politicians in office.
Of course the problem lies in that the rich and powerful have an immense amount of sway in what is defined as the "fair share of taxes" they have to pay.
That's because having that much money gives you disproportionate power. That power should come at a cost. Democracy is supposed to represent each individual equally yet money (powerful lobbies) have swayed that in the favor of a very small few since forever. If equality is important when paying taxes then it should be equally important when pulling strings.
And if we're talking about fairness if you were always happy with one of these imbalances then it's only fair to accept the second.
As someone not super rich, this is already a problem and is fundamental to the operation of a functional democracy.
If everyone could allocate their tax dollars as they saw fit, then we would not see funding for issues that don't affect the largest contributors - like universal healthcare, subsidised female sanitary products, public education and transport.
For better or for worse, a subscription to a balanced well-managed democratic system requires financial contribution AND political participation.
For instance, if you're ultra wealthy and believe in the right for women to seek abortion, vote that way and convince others to do so as well.
Charities are often a hidden form of tax evasion rather than a means to allocate funds to causes an individual believes in (though there are certainly exceptions).
That said, if we are talking about the USA, that's not an great example of a well functioning democratic system - it's rated internationally as a "flawed democracy" (sharing that rating with South Africa, India, Malaysia).
If a super rich US citizen wanted to improve the allocation of their tax contributions, best bang-for-their-buck would be campaigning for electoral reform.
... or just change their tax residency to a country that offers a lower tax rate
You've reframed the problem to wealth influencing politics, which still isn't something that needs to be fixed by taking money away from people. Redistribution is a decent solution to resource problems, but this isn't that kind of problem.
Ending money in politics is hard to do using the levers of democracy since those levers have already been purchased, so I understand the desire to end extreme wealth instead. There is another solution, though. We can end the influence of wealth on our politics without needing the government to do it for us.
Instead of trying to get the government to stop excess political spending, we should eliminate the incentive to accept excess political spending. People accept money to influence our democracy because they can use that money to get whatever they want from almost anyone, including you. You can't opt out because economic power is invisible. But we can make it visible, and give every individual the freedom to reject economic power that they feel is misused.
No, it's not just that. CF is not the only mechanism through which the wealthy can exert their influence:
- think tank funding
- ad spending
- lobbying (CF will not fix that)
- the potential of future jobs / revolving door
Most importantly, cultural deference does not go away with CF reform; people respect the monied and the powerful for more than their campaign contributions. They also respect people "like them" (http://time.com/373/congress-is-now-mostly-a-millionaires-cl...), which means similar socio-economic backgrounds, elite schools, clubs, etc.
They buy influence indirectly by simply having wealth and power concentrated with them. You can only reduce that by reducing the distance between the bottom and the top. You have to reduce "vertical social distance."
Nothing is a silver bullet here, but reducing wealth inequality is the most direct route to equalizing political power.
I struggle with any plan that lines up 99% of people to raid the wealth of 1% of people. It reminds me of the idea that minorities need the most protection because by nature, almost by definition, the majority doesn't have their interests in mind. A democratic system makes it very easy to hurt and further marginalize those people.
This is probably an unpopular opinion so I'll add: I'm not a billionaire, I'm not even a millionaire, and I know there's a lot of valid (but not necessarily good) arguments for why rich people deserve to pay more. But my moral compass is spinning.
Wealth inequality is extremely easy to solve - raise taxes on the rich (as well as rent-seeking). The problem is that our politicians, especially conservatives (though liberals are in on it too), have no integrity in this regard. We just need to stop voting in people who won't raise taxes on the rich.
* By the rich, I'm not referring to the doctors, engineers, and lawyers in the upper middle class, I'm referring to billionaires
Money is just playing way too large of role in the politics of the people
I think if we could fix democracy to be more fair the inequalities of wealth would reduce, but that is a steep up hill battle given the power they have :)
reply