There is a popular political slogan in circulation that seems somewhat suspect to me. It is designed to support a political notion that has been around for as long as I can remember. Its current form is expressed as simplistically as possible: 99% and 1%. Those percentages represent the ‘non-wealthy’ and the ‘wealthy’ respectively.
On October 28, 2011, The New York Times published the following taxation statistics:
Income starting at $11 million
Average $31 million
Families 14,000
Income starting at $2 million
Average $3.9 million
Families 135,000
Income starting at $386,000
Average $717,000
Families 1.35 million
Income starting at $108,000
Average $167,000
Families 13.2 million
Income starting at $0
Average $36,000
Families 132 million
According to the slogan, 99% of Americans are being exploited by 1%. We used to hear stories about big Republican money behind presidential campaigns. Now that the Democratic Party has bigger money than its adversary, most media continues to tell us that the Republican Party seeks the votes of their ‘friends,’ the wealthy. What is overlooked is the fact that individual millionaires (and billionaires) have only one vote each, no more or less than every other voter. Even if we round out the top three figures for families to as many as 2 million families, the rest of the voting population overwhelmingly outnumbers them. No political party can survive against those odds by catering to the wealthy. Party platforms based on financial class rather than fiscal responsibility would be political suicide.
Despite significantly differing incomes, we live in a fundamentally classless society. The current slogan is just another way to express the ageless cliché that the Democratic Party is for the poor and the Republican Party for the rich. I am not in favor of any political party, but generalizations are anathema to me. I cringe at expressions like, ‘the party for the poor,‘ ’real people,’ and ‘fair tax.’ I’m equally at odds with Social Conservatives and Limousine Liberals. Their prejudices clutter the paths of objectivity.