Our Own Ownership Society: Robert B. Reich

[Demeter]

I want to be among the first to commend the president for choosing as his major domestic theme the "Ownership Society." What could be more important than giving more Americans an opportunity to own assets and build wealth? The president is obviously concerned that ownership in America is now more concentrated in fewer hands than it's been since the days of the robber barons in the late 19th century. The richest 1 percent now own as much as the bottom 90 percent put together.

I can't tell you exactly what he'll propose, but if his goal is to spread the wealth I expect he’ll acknowledge that the present tax system isn’t fair. People earning over half a million dollars a year are subject to the lowest tax rate in over 50 years, and much of their unearned income isn’t being taxed at all. Meanwhile, he’ll explain that if you figure in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes, average working Americans are paying more in taxes than ever before. So in the president’s Ownership Society, middle- and lower-income workers will pay less tax. And this won’t bust the budget because he’ll reverse course and raise taxes on the rich.

I expect the president will also call for massive new federal investments in education, the key to spreading wealth in the new economy. In the Ownership Society, Washington will spend more on the nation’s schools than it now spends on Iraq -- starting with universal early-childhood education so the minds of toddlers and pre-Ks are ready to learn, followed by smaller classrooms with fewer students and better-paid, highly-qualified teachers. And access to college for any young person who can make good use of it, regardless of parental income.

Finally, the president will surprise some by saying he’s not in favor of privatizing Social Security after all. That would just line the pockets of Wall Street bankers who’d rake in huge fees managing all those private accounts. No, in the Ownership Society, the first $10,000 of income will be exempt from Social Security taxes -- and the president will make up the difference by raising the cap on earnings subject to the tax.

Now I may have some of the details a wrong, but assuming the president is serious about creating an Ownership Society, he’ll be announcing initiatives just like these. Won’t he?

Robert B. Reich is co-founder of The American Prospect. A version of this column originally appeared on NPR’s Marketplace.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9068

[Demeter]

1. Unfortunately, Bush Ownership Society Has a "Southern" Flair

I suspect that Bush's idea of an ownership society involves the master/slave structure of the antebellum South. And we are the slaves!

[Ms_Mary]

7. Ouch. As a southerner, when I think southern flair

I think good manners and friendliness, not the darkest, most unconscionable, most shameful part of southern history.

[stray cat]

2. What an awesome article.

[papau]

3. Excellent points that will not make it into the media

:-(

[GOPFighter]

4. Why is Bush smiling?

Because no one seems to have caught on to what he means by his "Onership Society" The "owners" will be Wall Street, the "society" will be us!

[Demeter]

5. Free Social Security!

The first $10,000 should be without tax.

[michaelwb]

6. Idea

"That would just line the pockets of Wall Street bankers who’d rake in huge fees managing all those private accounts."

Now we all know that this is the real reason the Repubs are wetting their pants about privatizing SS.

Why don't the Dems offer a counter proposal that includes something like either or both of these ideas.

1) Guaranteed minimum payments to retirees, if the privatized benefits end up paying retirees more that's well and good. And if it is less then the government makes up the difference. After all if privatization is such a great thing they government won't have to pay anything, right? ;-)

2) The bankers and fund managers only get paid if the investments make enough to make the minimums (fees can never put any individual retiree below the minimum guaranteed amounts.) The more the investments make above the minimum for retirees the more the fund managers get.

That might take the wind out of the Repubs sail and show that this isn't really for the benefits of retirees, but instead just a Repub money grab.