"You speak the truth, it took years but America did recover. What America also had at that point was a unifying event, WWII, as in every war, of course there were those who did not agree with the war, but overall the War did serve to bring Americans together. Unfortunately, at this time we also have a couple of wars occurring, however, they are not serving the need for national unity."
Very true. So, let's take a look at what was different about America's "Greatest Generation" and the current one.
To begin with, during WWII, the income tax rates were extremely high for the wealthiest citizens, at times 91%. We were fighting for our very survival as a nation, and so the wealthy did not object too greatly to contributing- they knew where there bread was buttered. The direct result of this was that the common people actually appreciated the wealthy. There was not as much political dissent as we now have.
Every time a country has a high gini coefficient (income disparity) there is political instability. The poor resent the rich, and the rich resent the poor. One party stands up for each of the two groups, and due to the resentment, very little can be accomplished on a congressional level. Discussion ceases, collaboration dies, and we wind up at a standstill. This leads to political uncertainty and senseless bickering, and we eventually consider that our system is not the most beneficial one.
Republicans in Congress are right now arguing over letting Bush' tax cuts expire, which would return them to the 39% level they once were. NOT 91%, as in WWII, but a mere 39%. Again, we are in a state of war, but the difference is that our survival is not in jeopardy. The wealthy know this, and so they are not willing to fund the war by themselves.
The bottom line is that if we were NOT engaged in a pointless conflict, there would be plenty of money in our coffers.
My second point involves that income disparity, which is creating the political tension we now see. During WWII, the difference in our respective incomes was not nearly so high. We did not resent the wealthy, instead we aspired to emulate them.
The solution, to me, is (gulp) income redistribution. Yes, the beginning of socialism. I don't care for the idea, but it seems we've been backed into a corner by the greed of the rich. Ironically, they will be the first to scream bloody murder if we cap their incomes, and restore the middle class, but that is EXACTLY what needs to be done.
Very true. So, let's take a look at what was different about America's "Greatest Generation" and the current one.
To begin with, during WWII, the income tax rates were extremely high for the wealthiest citizens, at times 91%. We were fighting for our very survival as a nation, and so the wealthy did not object too greatly to contributing- they knew where there bread was buttered. The direct result of this was that the common people actually appreciated the wealthy. There was not as much political dissent as we now have.
Every time a country has a high gini coefficient (income disparity) there is political instability. The poor resent the rich, and the rich resent the poor. One party stands up for each of the two groups, and due to the resentment, very little can be accomplished on a congressional level. Discussion ceases, collaboration dies, and we wind up at a standstill. This leads to political uncertainty and senseless bickering, and we eventually consider that our system is not the most beneficial one.
Republicans in Congress are right now arguing over letting Bush' tax cuts expire, which would return them to the 39% level they once were. NOT 91%, as in WWII, but a mere 39%. Again, we are in a state of war, but the difference is that our survival is not in jeopardy. The wealthy know this, and so they are not willing to fund the war by themselves.
The bottom line is that if we were NOT engaged in a pointless conflict, there would be plenty of money in our coffers.
My second point involves that income disparity, which is creating the political tension we now see. During WWII, the difference in our respective incomes was not nearly so high. We did not resent the wealthy, instead we aspired to emulate them.
The solution, to me, is (gulp) income redistribution. Yes, the beginning of socialism. I don't care for the idea, but it seems we've been backed into a corner by the greed of the rich. Ironically, they will be the first to scream bloody murder if we cap their incomes, and restore the middle class, but that is EXACTLY what needs to be done.
