While I have already covered some of the topics, this is a recap of some unconventional wisdom observations on issues not often commented on in the media of any political stripe.
According to CNN, over 60% of Americans either directly or indirectly own stocks traded on Wall St. Think of all those 401(k)s , mutual funds , union and other pension funds, 521 college plans,insurance annuities and policies , and other retirement and investment funds. In addition some of the biggest players on Wall St are employee benefits or union funds-- like Teachers, Calpers,Nysters and so on.
Therefore to a significant degree a strong Wall St actually benefits Main St.
Lots of ordinary people benefit from Wall St and I think they are the same people who pay all the taxes , because ( also according to CNN) 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes ( none of those who pay nothing are the "rich" thanks to AMT).
That's why most tax cuts benefit the rich, since it's so difficult to cut lower income earners taxes. However we do actually pay some people who pay no federal income tax.
So when you talk about federal taxpayers bailing out Wall St what does that really mean? Are we to a large degree bailing out ourselves? And just who are those "taxpayers " anyway? Certainly not the ones who pay no federal income taxes.
Also what kind of country are we if our "shared responsibility" as citizens at the federal level is only participated in by 53% of our citizens.
How is it we venerate Joe Six Pack , who pays very little, if any, taxes and treat people who pay taxes in six or seven figure amounts like they were the scum of the earth, if not outright evil. Just once I'd like to hear a politician say "thank you" to those who pay most of the taxes.
Also why is the " blue collar " guy so venerated. I'd rather have the 24/7 hard charging white collar executive or professional who works 100 + hours a week instead of the union guy who stops working when the whistle blows unless he gets paid overtime. When his union contract says he doesn't have to do something, he won't do it even if it is for the good of his company and as such his job.
What does being a a "lunch bucket " guy mean anyway and why is it such a good thing? Don't get me wrong , I'm not knocking the union guy ( I actually think unions saved capitalism in the early part of the last century), I just don't understand why he is such symbol of what's right and good in America.
We have this bias against successful people, even though most of us would like to be one of them. Maybe that's it.
While I too believe, and have written numerous times, that executive compensation, not tied directly to performance, has gotten way out of control, why is no one complaining about professional athletes, entertainers, media stars and the like.
What does it say when a weak hitting second basemen can make millions of dollars a year or when there was a guy sitting on the Bulls bench last year who has never, and will never, play a minute in a game for the Bulls, yet made in excess of $8 million dollars that year and the year before?
Don't tell me that tax payer money isn't involved. Think of all those stadiums and other taxpayer funded amenities (tax breaks, infrastructure, police, etc.) that are lavished on many sports franchises.
And what about movie stars? They can get paid more for one movie than a Goldman Sachs CEO makes in a year.
While we're at it, what about all those TV and radio news people and commentators who lambaste greedy Wall St execs and bankers and who themselves make well into 7 figures. What societal benefits have they given us that merits their high compensation? Yet they complain about the compensation of bankers and other high paid execs.
As I've written before, my purpose in doing these posting is to point out certain anomalies and inconsistencies in what we hear and read everyday form our politicians and media from both the left and the right.
Eric
No comments:
Post a Comment