It was fine if your boss made 10 or even 20 times more than you did. But that differential has now climbed somewhere north of 350 while family income and wealth for the top few percent have shot up in this century while incomes and wealth have grown little if at all for everybody else.
This has been allowed because the working class American has no clue about where their money comes from. They have been conned into accepting their employer as the "source" of money and their government as a "cost" that they must fund with their taxes. When you believe that the one entity that can provide a floor for your misery is something more you have to "pay for" it's not difficult to see why it was so easy for Reagan to turn the working class to punching down on the poor.
Since our political system allows the wealthy to fund politicians this perspective has been largely promoted by the (now much wealthier) political class and the media, also very much a product of capitalistic propaganda since Clinton turned its ownership into a free-for-all of consolidation and monopoly.
That discontent came from racial animosities, sure, but, in my opinion, primarily from decades of economic stagnation and neglect.
Reagan's message from the right, followed by Clinton's message from the left, meant that no one in politics disagreed with the common perspective, so the problems of the working class must be the fault of immigrants and welfare queens, not their bosses or Wall St tycoons who took full advantage of the increased economic pressure on workers to put a boot on their necks and their wages.
Since the introduction of neoliberalism, the working class has not been represented in national politics since the late '70s. The left offered no relief except to agree with the right since it was competing with the right for its donors after abandoning labor unions. The wealthy found long ago that the best way to be assured of a wealth-friendly government is to make politician wealthy, which they wasted no time in doing once the way was cleared legislatively.
The Census Bureau estimates that it would take about $220 billion — one percent of the nation’s GDP — to end poverty in America, meaning lifting every American up to the official poverty line. $220 billion is pretty close to what one American, Jeff Bezos, is worth.
While this is technically true, it is a terrible way to approach the solution. It assumes that Bezos has the ability to "fund" this function of government ongoing, so it is dependent upon his remaining wealthy, which is the language of the oppressors hidden in the "job creators" title bestowed upon them.
The working class will see any such attempt as a further threat to their own status and will be easily dissuaded against it with bumper sticker propaganda and the implied (though false) willingness of the left to embrace "socialism" in government. Remember that the average working-class American that can't round up $500 in an emergency still considers himself a "capitalist".
Support those determined to do something about it. Ask any candidates who want your vote what their position is on taxing corporations and wealthy individuals.
Do you think you are the first to notice this problem, or the first to confront a politician about it?? Tax rates on top earners have been sliding downward since the '80s and so have the wage rates of the American working class. In that time period I would safely bet that every left leaning politician has endorsed some measures to reverse that, and the taxes that would presumably pay for those.
How's that workin for ya so far??
We certainly don't want to just give up, but what will work that "hasn't" been tried yet? How about spreading the message that taxes "don't" actually fund programs at the federal level and "borrowing" is not necessary to facilitate spending? Both are quite true and easily demonstrated to anyone with a smattering of intelligence able to read a spread sheet.
How about, instead of implying that we "need" the money from our wealthy to fund the public purpose our government is supposed to see to by Constitutional mandate, that we simply use the sovereign fiat self-funding currency Congress has available in infinite quantity, even without a dime of "revenue", and make it happen? If you want to make sure the wealthy pay "their fair share" the best way I can think of doing that is to make them "irrelevant" to spending, which they are.
