Here is a chart that makes clear exactly what being middle class means in terms of income: an average annual household after tax income for the middle fifth of households in 2006 of $52,100. Simple interpolation suggests that the top of the middle income group is around $62,950.
Yglesias thinks the chart as a whole implies that:
…the trend is unmistakable. Higher taxes, more transfers, and more government services.
This is undoubtedly true as long as so many believe that government’s role, as our politicians state repeatedly, is focused on protecting and assisting those in the lower 2-3 quintiles.
The chart makes makes a pretty good case, though, that government actions have been around protecting and enhancing the wealth and power of that upper 20% and most particularly the upper 1%.
More taxes, transfers and services are palliatives applied to win votes and do little, if anything, to fix the structural problems that lead to such a poor distribution of income.
The only effective way to make the results among the quintiles more equal will be to change the structure of the economy so that the top 1% is no longer favored. This will require eliminating the extensive government interventions that feed the wealthy on the backs of the poor; on the backs, if you will, of the lower 90+%.
There is muchado about the devastation of Galveston by hurricane Ike. However, there would be little chatter about this if Galveston were not there and Galveston would not be there in anywhere near the form it was in before the storm without some failed incentives for people to build on that barrier island. From the above linked Fox News story:
Barrier islands like Galveston are particularly vulnerable to storm damage because they are made of sand, as opposed to the hard bedrock that underlies larger islands and the mainland.
They also tend to have very low elevations, making it easy for water to wash over and submerge the island.
Many have questioned the wisdom of choosing to build on and develop barrier islands, given their risks.
Why, then, have so many ignored what look to be obviously significant risks?
Perhaps someone has reduced the risks for the folks who have built out Galveston. One way of doing that would be for insurance companies to offer wind insurance.
But any wise insurance company would surely charge such a high annual premium that it would be prohibitive for any one to build on Galveston Island. If they can’t charge a high enough rate they won’t offer the insurance. To wit:
Allstate dropped windstorm coverage for nearly 65,000 policyholders last year, and other companies, such as State Farm, stopped coverage within 2,500 feet of the coast.
In the wake of the disastrous 2005 storm season in which hurricanes Katrina and Rita battered gulf coast states, many private insurers abandoned the coast, forcing their clients to seek “insurers of last resort.”
TWIA’s purpose is to provide Texas citizens adequate wind and
hail coverage when it is not available in the insurance
marketplace;and pay insured’s claims when losses occur.
The Texas Windstorm Insurance Association is a ‘pool’ of all
property and casualty (P&C) insurance companies authorized to
write coverage in Texas.
TWIA is neither a state organization, nor a for-profit company,
and therefore does not seek to increase its market share.
Oh, where to begin.
First, here is the failed incentive. The market, yes, the market makes it clear that it does not make sense to build on this barrier island (inter alia). But someone one has decided that even though it is pretty stupid to build here the risks of doing so should be alleviated. Who, might that someone be?
Well, this so called association is not a voluntary outfit*. It was created by the Texas legislature and the referenced property and casualty insurance companies do not participate voluntarily; they are required to by law to participate. As noted* its too low fee structure is set by the Texas legislature; it’s members can be assessed (taxed) for losses and they will charge higher rates to their other customers to recover these losses (more taxes); and what isn’t covered by the initial funding mechanisms will be picked up by the rest of the Texas taxpayers. Hmmm, this is beginning to sound like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
So the TWIA tells us that it is not a state organization. Well, it walks like one, it is funded like one, it is constrained like one, it provides false incentives like one, ….
Like the duck, it is a state organization and no amount of doublespeak is going to change this.
Why Galveston? The state of texas decided it should support stupid investments: construction in areas that have a high likelihood of repeated severe storm damage. There really is no excuse for this.
That the TWIA exists is a perfectly good example of government failure and is a perfectly good reason to impeach, heck, just toss out the folks that implemented and continue to support such wasteful programs.
There is no good reason to replace them either.
This is the best campaign video I’ve seen!! Watch it no matter who you currently prefer:
Yep, it is time for some real change.
To bad ron paul, even though he is not really a libertarian, is not a viable candidate. None of the other candidates represent any kind of real change.
As usual we endorse NO ONE for president.
I’ll grant those who choose to smoke cigarettes their right to do so.
Just as long as they do not inflict their smoking on others.
To that end smokers who toss cigarette remains on the sidewalk, street or in the gutter are flipping the finger to the rest of us who should neither have to look at the mess nor pay towards cleaning it up.
Perhaps if enough folks speak up when they see this happening we can put an end to it!
BTW, smoking in a truly public place like a bus stop, walking down the sidewalk, in a park, etc., surely constitutes a form of assault if your smoke ends up in someone else’s nostrils.
When so many major elements of the ostensibly private sector–the press, telecommunications, and oil, just to name a few (I’m not including the “defense” industry, because there’s nothing even ostensibly “private sector” about it)–are part and parcel of our security state and imperial policies, does it make sense to describe this as being even the faintest semblance of a market economy and system of private enterprise?
That is a question that really shouldn’t need asking. The US economy is not a market economy and has not been since, well, pretty much forever.
It is important to remember that every time someone blames the market, or the free market, or some other similar entity for failing that it is a corporate state economy that has failed and the corporate state economy will fail again and again except at achieving its primary objective: scraping wealth off of the backs of the rest of us.
I doubt that McKibben knows what he’s talking about. That is, I doubt that he has any real appreciation for just how much our lives depend upon global commerce and industry. I doubt that he understands that each of us daily depends for our standards of living — indeed, for our very lives — on the creativity and efforts of tens of millions of people worldwide.
It’s illuminating how expensive these experiments in buying local-only turn out to be. You never seem to hear about “working class” people rejecting global capitalism to prove some sort of ecopolitical holier-than-thou point. Maybe because they are too busy shopping at WalMart just trying to get by. Eliminating or reducing global trade would make their lives unbearably more difficult, if not impossible.
This is true enough. Pull the plug now on today’s global economy and things would look pretty bleak for anyone not currently “living locally.”
But, it is surprising to hear such supposedly strong free market supporters praising so loudly a structure so substantially built and maintained by the force of the state.
Boudreaux goes on to say:
…McKibben’s prescription would ironcially also likely require a vast, global government possessing awesome powers to force we humans to live — and to keep living — in local economies.
Just like our current version of a global economy is subsidized and maintained by vast government structures possessing awesome powers.