Socialism for the rich or socialism for the good of all: that's the choice.

[Stevepol]

I got an email from a friend who noted that Reich had suggested eliminating taxes for people making less than a certain salary. He thought that was a good idea, but then he included a long list of taxes that we pay now and suggested that we would be better off if we had no taxes at all the way we were in the 19th century when we were propserous and happy (supposedly).

Here's my answer to him:

John (not his real name),

Reich's idea is a good one, but the tax list is probably something the tea
baggers came up with. Taxes are necessary if you want a civilized society. The
question is who do you tax. In the 50s and early 60s, the rich paid between
70-90% in taxes, while the middle class paid a fair but not excessive share. We
were wealthy and prosperous and we had a large middle class and an industrial
base. Since the Republicans have practically destroyed the unions and convinced
people that taxing the rich is unfair, the country has lost its middle class and
its industrial base.

Compare that with Germany. Germany has the second highest trade SURPLUS next to
China in the world. They have a strong industrial base. They work about 30-50
days less (more vacation time) and yet make more on average, have health care
and many other welfare benefits for everybody. They beat us economically with
their hands tied behing their back. How do they do it?

After WWII, the US and Britain labor and the Roosevelt folks (fearful the
right-wingers would take over again) required that Germany have work councils,
co-determined boards, and country-wide wage setting institutions. If you work
for Quik-Trip as a clerk in Germany, you can vote for a couple of your fellow
clerks to sit in on the works council, an equal number of workers and managers.
The council decides and debates wage changes, hiring and firing, etc. The
laboring man has a voice in every phase of the business. Then, at the national
and regional level, the Quik-Trip company has to have representatives of the
clerks on its governing board. HALF of the board is workers. The owners get the
final vote if the council is split but at least they debate before they move the
company oversees or ship out the jobs. And Germany hasn't shipped out many jobs.
The unions themselves join in organizatioins country-wide to set wages around
the country so if you're a clerk at QT in Des Moines you will make approximately
what a clerk in Wichita makes.

In any country, large or small, you have to have taxes and what that means is
the wages are re-distributed, so it's not a question of just taxes or
re-distribution. The question is how do you want to re-distribute the wages? Do
you want to take from the poor and give to the rich as we do, or do you want to
take from the rich and give to the poor so the whole country can prosper? In the
US we've got socialism for the rich; Germany has socialism for the common man
and the good of all.

That's the choice, not some inane, tea party listing of taxes as if taxes are the enemy.

Steve

[T Wolf]

1. Very well written. You get the point across with a really good example. It's not too long.

Very good work.

Consider submitting this somewhere. It says something important very well. It could educate someone.

[Stevepol]

2. I didn't mention the source of this.

I had just read an article in Harper's for March of this year (I believe that's the issue), which explains Germany's economic system. It's really an excellent article and makes it clear why Germany is prospering and riding out the hard times as well as it is so far.