See also the following Times articles:
More from Opinion on income inequality:
- Opinion | Farhad Manjoo: Abolish Billionaires Feb. 6, 2019
- Opinion | Will Wilkinson: Don’t Abolish Billionaires Feb. 21, 2019
- Opinion | Paul Krugman: The Economics of Soaking the Rich Jan. 5, 2019
- Opinion | Richard V. Reeves: Stop Pretending You’re Not Rich June 10, 2017
‘Austerity, That’s What I Know’: The Making of a Young U.K. Socialist
Alex McIntyre, 19, was brought up in a Britain being reshaped by government cuts. He gave up on capitalism after a year in college. By Ellen Barry
Feb. 24, 2019 NY Times
See articles related to the above:
- What Is Austerity? A Guide to the U.K.’s Budget Squeeze
Feb. 24, 2019 - In Britain, Austerity Is Changing Everything May 28, 2018
- Britain Was a Pioneer in Outsourcing Services. Now, the Model Is ‘Broken.’ Jan. 31, 2018
- As Austerity Helps Bankrupt an English County, Even Conservatives Mutiny Aug. 17, 2018.
- In Britain, Even Children Are Feeling the Effects of Austerity
How the Upper Middle Class Is Really Doing
Is it more similar to the top 1 percent or the working class? By David Leonhardt
Opinion Columnist Feb. 24, 2019:
Have upper-middle-class Americans been winners in the modern economy — or victims? That question has been the subject of a debate recently among economists, writers and others.
On one side are people who argue that the bourgeois professional class — essentially, households with incomes in the low-to-mid six figures but without major wealth — is not so different from the middle class and poor. All of these groups are grappling with slow-growing incomes, high medical costs, student debt and so on.
The only real winners in today’s economy are at the very top, according to this side of the debate. When Bernie Sanders talks about “the greed of billionaires” or Thomas Piketty writes about capital accumulation, they are making a version of this case.
Mr. Leonhart argues that having a high income ($100,000 to 500,000 a year) even with no savings, makes you different from than the 90% of the population that also has no savings but much lower income.
A better approach exists. Politicians should recognize that there are three broad income groups, not just two. The bottom 90 percent of Americans does deserve a tax cut, to lift its stagnant incomes. The top 1 percent deserves a substantial tax increase. The upper middle class deserves neither. Its taxes should remain roughly constant, just as its share of economic output has.
The upper middle class doesn’t deserve the blame for our economic problems. But it doesn’t deserve much government help, either.
Mr. Leonhart is wrong. His take on this topic will certainly help the 1% avoid any taxes.
Persons without enough savings to live on without selling their time are poor. This has historically been the definition of poverty. See pp. The Rich and The Super Rich
