Raghuram Rajan frames the unsaid agreement between the rich and non-rich perfectly:
What prevents the median voter in a democracy from voting to dispossess the rich and successful? And why do the latter not erode the political power of the former? Echoes of such a tension are playing out as President Barack Obama tries to tap into middle-class anger, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney appeals to disgruntled businesspeople.
CommentsOne reason that the median voter rationally agrees to protect the property of the rich may be that she sees the rich as more efficient managers of that property. So, to the extent that the rich are self-made, and have come out winners in a fair, competitive, and transparent market, society may be better off allowing them to own and manage their wealth, while getting a reasonable share as taxes. The more, however, that the rich are seen as idle or crooked – as having simply inherited or, worse, gained their wealth nefariously – the more the median voter should be willing to vote for tough regulations and punitive taxes on them.
“Idle” being the key word here, and a word I would’ve pegged to the elite long ago. Idle wealth is what produced Paris Hilton .. and other such freakish anomalies. That’s not good for society, and that’s why you have estates taxes, etc., so that money goes to work, and doesn’t end up on reality TV.
????????? ???? ????????? [url=http://carsoemerda.netfast.org/art.php?n=943909]?????????? ? ????????[/url] ?????????? ????? [url=http://carsoemerda.netfast.org/art.php?n=257804]???? ?????????? ???????????? ????[/url] ???? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?? 55 ??? ?????????? ? ???????? ????????????? ? ???????? ?????? [url=http://carsoemerda.netfast.org/art.php?n=233560]???? ?????????? ??????????[/url] ?????????? ? ?????? ???? ??????? ????????? [url=http://carsoemerda.netfast.org/art.php?n=476604]?????????? ? ????????? ? ??????[/url] ?????????? ???? ????????? ????????????? ? ???????? ? ?????? ???? ?????????? ? ??????? [url=http://carsoemerda.netfast.org/art.php?n=20908]????? ?????????? ??????[/url] ?????????? ???? ????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ???????? [url=http://carsoemerda.netfast.org/art.php?n=107161]?????????? ??? ????? ?????????[/url] ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????????? ? ???? ? ??????? ???? ????? ??????????
I do enjoy "Robin Hood", and his Merry Band of Men. Anything that heads us in that direction is A-OK with me.
The thing is that the rich and powerful have generally been our political leaders and they have not done that 'great' job of managing the country's resources. Just yesterday, a short video came out from a retired accountant that shows the US revenue to be insufficient to support ANY of the Federal discretionary budget once our obligations for debt service and entitlements are paid. That's put the creditor's name in the hat and maybe this might be your day handling of our collective business. The thing is, the US is not broke. Our economy today is as big and rich as all of Europe's COMBINED and our economy today is almost twice as big as China's, even though we have only one third of the Chinese population. Big corporate profits are at an all-time high while people are out of work and Wall Street banks are thriving while folks are losing their homes. There is money here, lots of it, but its tied up in bonuses, private planes, and Bush tax giveaways for the rich. It's destined for tax shelters, subsidies for polluters, Halliburton expense accounts, war bills and defense against the 'insurgents.' Would the proposed "Robin Hood tax" identified by Robert Reich really be so bad for Wall Street speculators? Their habitual gamblers with their discretionary income anyway, and we're talking less than 0.05% tax on Wall Street financial transactions that would raise $350 BILLION each year. An idle tax on idle money!