The
U.S. is suffering from excessive wealth disorder.
This
isn’t your parents’ inequality influenza, but a more virulent strain of extreme
disparities of income, wealth, and opportunity.
Just
400 billionaires have as much wealth as nearly two-thirds of American
households combined.
And just three individuals — Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates — have as much wealth as half of all U.S. households put together.
And just three individuals — Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates — have as much wealth as half of all U.S. households put together.
Since
the economic meltdown of 2008, the lion’s share of income and wealth growth
hasn’t gone just to the top 1 percent — it’s gone to the richest one-tenth
of 1 percent. This 0.1 percent includes households with annual incomes
starting at $2.2 million and wealth over $20 million.
This
group has been the big winner of the last few decades.
Its share of national income rose from 6 percent in 1995 to 11 percent in 2015.
But their biggest gains are in wealth, increasing their share from 7 percent in
1978 to over 21 percent today.
That’s
210 times their share of the population.
When
you have over $20 million, you’ve easily taken care of all your needs and those
of the next generation of your family. You’re living in comfort, probably with
multiple homes, and don’t want for anything.
It’s
at this point we see the telltale signs of excessive wealth disorder. Despite
being already comfortable beyond measure, segments of this 0.1 percent will
often invest their wealth to rig the political rules to get even more wealth
and power.
They contribute the legal maximum donations to politicians and then do an end run around campaign finance laws to siphon even larger sums through “dark money” SuperPACs, using corporate entities that don’t have to disclose donors.
When
this donor class demands tax cuts, their political puppets kick into overdrive
to deliver the goods.
The
0.1 percenters create charitable foundations that become extensions of their
own power and privilege. They undermine the health of the nonprofit sector by
controlling a growing share of the charitable giving pie.
They
deploy their wealth to help their kids get into elite colleges, both through
donations and, as we’ve seen recently, outright bribery.
It’s
clear the rest of society needs to intervene. Excessive wealth disorder is
wrecking life for the rest of us.
What
can we do? We need to put forward a “plutocracy prevention program” — public
policies to reduce the power of this top 0.1 percent group.
Some
presidential candidates are stepping forward with bold ideas. Senator Elizabeth
Warren’s wealth tax idea is a courageous step
in this direction. She’s proposed a 2 percent annual tax on wealth over $50
million, with a 3 percent rate on wealth over $1 billion.
Progressive
Democrats have proposed raising the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent on
households with incomes over $10 million. Senators Kamala Harris and Bernie
Sanders both have proposals to make the estate tax more progressive and slow
the accumulation of dynastic wealth.
Polls
show widespread popular support for these proposals. All of them face steep
sledding in a Congress beholden to the top 0.1 percent donor class.
One
first step might be a proposal that exclusively targets the 0.1 percent class.
How about a 10 percent income surtax on incomes over $2 million, including
capital gains?
That’s
not as steep as a 70 percent marginal rate, but it would move us in the right
direction. It would raise substantial revenue — an
estimated $70 billion a year and $750 billion over the next
decade — from those with the greatest capacity to pay.
Bringing
such a proposal to a vote would require lawmakers to make a clear
choice: Are you with the vast majority of voters who believe the super-rich
should pay more? Or are you carrying water for the richest 0.1 percent?
Chuck
Collins directs the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Distributed by OtherWords.org.
