Income Inequality: Are The Democrats Evil, Or Just Completely Useless?
Written By: Anton Sawyer
Being as vocal as I am about the political independents of the country has really opened my eyes as to how indivisible certain people have become when it pertains to party affiliation. These people are also not afraid to share these feelings.
To the republicans, I am nothing more than an arbiter of destruction. Hell-bent on razing our entire way of life in America in an attempt to punish those who have had success, all done while yelling at the top of my lungs how much I hate the red, white, and blue.
To the democrats, because I don’t blindly follow along and hold the same level of unconditional love for the party and its leaders as this kind of person does, I am seen as nothing more than a member of the Geheimpolizei secret police that wants to see an autocracy proliferate. It’s also these people for whom I am writing this article today. The democrats who have become so enamored with the morally correct stance towards social issues that the party itself is perceived as being impenetrable from “evil.” I hate to say this, but they’re blind and in all actuality, helping to make the situations of the lower and middle classes far worse.
In an attempt to maintain complete transparency, all research and statistical fact-checking for this article, and all articles, can be found at our site's bibliography linked here.
Follow on Twitter
If you like the article, buy me a coffee!
If you are new to the site, income inequality is something I have written about many, many times before. The crux to everything pertaining to the best possibility for economic prosperity amongst all classes comes down to two numbers: 91% and 2.6%.
Statistically speaking, the best time in modern US history for all classes was post-World War II 1940s, 50s, 60s, and part of the 70s. During this time it was possible to not only survive on one income, but it was also possible to thrive. The 91% pertains to the top tax rate on the highest earners and the 2.6% refers to the ratio of the minimum wage to the average annual household income—both were taken from the year 1963.
This was a peak for the average citizen. It was before the Vietnam War and upward mobility was within reach of a majority of Americans because of their buying power—before it essentially flattened in the 1970s and took a turn for the worse as the decades have progressed. The numbers are 37% and 1.3% as of 2020.
Looking at this discrepancy in taxes and the purchasing power of the lower and middle classes, every piece of federal fiscal legislation that comes down the pipe and gets us closer to the 1963 numbers is what I put my support behind. I do not care if the politician proposing the agenda has a “D” or an “R” next to their name because the only way we can truly resume the positive trajectory of upward mobility we’ve had in the past (i.e. when America was “great” as some would say) is by returning to those numbers.
It’s this knowledge that allows for the title asking if the democrats are evil or just useless? Because it’s one thing to know what is going to work and then outright doing the opposite, and it’s something completely different when the attempts made at the endgame are mediocre at best. Let’s look at some recent happenings.
Enter Kyrsten Sinema …
Having written about her previously, I don’t have a problem with her independent political nature. This site is dedicated to not blindly follow one political party or another specifically, so voting what you think is right is something I will always respect. The problem is when you come advertised as one thing and turn out to be something completely different. I feel that if you want to be a “maverick” like she does, then register as an Independent but caucus with whichever party most closely mirrors your overall agenda—like Bernie Sanders. With him, you know he will go against the DNC machine in fighting for what he believes in. He’s advertised as being his own political person and has acted accordingly. With Sinema to come out and not only run as a democrat but to also refuse to engage in almost any official DNC business to help the future of the party, it sends mixed messages and sows confusion throughout. She’s incredibly unpredictable and is really only using the democrat title to help soften the blow for long-time conservatives in Arizona who couldn’t stomach to support Trump—and what the party had become overall.
Because of backlash brought about by Sinema, along with Democrat Senator from West Virginia Joe Manchin, over certain tax increases that were in the initial “Build Back Better” initiative brought about by the White House, the DNC had to get creative. Yes, there was an attempt made.
In 2021 Biden unveiled his “Billionaire Income Tax” proposal. Under the proposal, the federal government would require billionaires to pay taxes on the increased value of assets such as stocks on an annual basis, regardless of whether they sell those assets. As of this publication, rich Americans do not have to pay taxes on their accumulations of wealth, such as real estate, stocks, and artwork, because they are taxed only when an asset is sold. This has led to democrats arguing for higher income and corporate tax rates for years, saying wealthy Americans and companies should pay more to fund new social benefits. Though this is an idea that is worth investigating, both Sinema and Manchin have made it clear that they don’t want to see any tax increases and that any economic program they support must be done in such a way to where everything pays for itself. This opposition from Sinema and Manchin has brought about the ire of DNC leadership. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made a statement about this opposition which is more telling than what I think he originally intended. “Everyone is going to have to compromise if we are to find that legislative sweet spot that we can all get behind. Nobody will get everything they want."
Schumer’s statement is the exact reason why we have gotten to levels of income inequality we haven’t seen since the days of The Great Gatsby.
Many of the democratic faithful have taken the stance that if you do not follow the party as a whole, then you are welcoming in Naziism, autocracy, and throwing open the door to allow any number of human atrocities to become normalized.
To them, I say this: we’ve been watching this economic separation of the classes since it began in earnest during the 1970s. During this time there have been many different eras in which the democrats have had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency—all in various permutations/degrees. To say that everything detrimental which has befallen the lower classes is due to the actions of only one side is just blind faith and not based in reality. Being complicit in a negative action has just as much impact as the action itself. I'm going to put some examples out reflecting the possible (and sometimes very real-life) instances of how this mindset is detrimental to everyone by using the numbers written about above.
No matter the year, let’s assume we are currently at the top tax level of 90% (TL) and the minimum wage to average annual household income (MWHI) is 2.6%. The middle class is thriving and able to have all the purchasing power that comes with these numbers.
About two years before a national election, GOP leadership comes out and says that because of high unemployment numbers, the minimum wage can’t be increased because businesses have fewer employees and are selling fewer products. The DNC comes out to fight against this saying that if companies pay their employees more, then there will be more want for work and more money being filtered through local economies. The GOP finds a piece of legislation to a key issue (immigration reform for example) that the DNC wants to pass before the election and makes it clear that the GOP, as a whole, will fight its passage completely if the minimum wage is raised. Weighing the number of people being impacted by not raising minimum wage versus the key immigration issue, the DNC decides not to push the issue on minimum wage—kicking it down the road. This then lowers the MWHI to 2.3%.
When looking at the clear-cut numbers and methods that have been used by the Republican Party (including the very real example used above), it’s easy to see how if this process were to occur every four-to-six years, how the MWHI could dwindle to 1.9% to 1.7% to 1.5% to 1.3% over the span of a few decades. Combine this with the fact that taxes on the top earners have dropped from 91% to 37% (thereby drastically reducing the funding for such government programs as infrastructure), it’s easy to understand how the lower classes have gotten into the dire situation they are currently in.
For us as a country to get back to the top of the pile when it comes to the upward advancement from one economic class to another; the stats are clear. The other clear thing is the fact that we must acknowledge that it takes two to tango. We cannot just blindly follow whatever leadership it is you’ve attached yourself to and expect them to always do what is in your best interest. We need to study the voting records and laws that are presented by those who can directly impact our lives and call them out when they are complicit in activities that will hurt those with whom they are charged to protect.
Only through education are you going to find out who is number one in the eyes of the political leadership. And number one isn’t you. In fact, you’re not even number two … in almost every way.
If you like the article, buy me a coffee!