Careful, it's a trick question.
According to Nicholas Kristof's column in the Times today (my emphasis):
In the 1940s, the top 1 percent [in Argentina] controlled more than 20 percent of incomes. That was roughly double the share at that time in the United States.
Since then, we’ve reversed places. The share controlled by the top 1 percent in Argentina has fallen to a bit more than 15 percent. Meanwhile, inequality in the United States has soared to levels comparable to those in Argentina six decades ago — with 1 percent controlling 24 percent of American income in 2007.
Kristof goes on to ask:
At a time of such stunning inequality, should Congress put priority on spending $700 billion on extending the Bush tax cuts to those with incomes above $250,000 a year? Or should it extend unemployment benefits for Americans who otherwise will lose them beginning next month?
Good question. But wait, there's more:
But there is also a larger question: What kind of a country do we aspire to be? Would we really want to be the kind of plutocracy where the richest 1 percent possesses more net worth than the bottom 90 percent?
Oops! That’s already us. The top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of America’s private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent.
That also means that the top 10 percent controls more than 70 percent of Americans’ total net worth.
The Republicans are fond of accusing President Obama of trying to turn America into a European-style democratic-socialist society. But what is the GOP offering in its place, 1940s Argentina?
(By the way, I just got back from Europe and -- Shhh! Don't tell the Wall Street Journal -- it's really nice over there.)
No comments:
Post a Comment