Рост неравенства и рост популярности демократических социалистов в США

With the mid-term election almost here, much is being made of income distribution in America. Every three years, the Federal Reserve creates a survey that is administered by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. The survey is designed to measure how Americans feel about their economic circumstances, including their income, and prospects for “getting ahead” for themselves and their children. In the most recent survey, 70% believed that the idea of “the American Dream,” i.e., if you work hard, you will get ahead, no longer holds true, or never did. This is the highest percentage among Americans in the past 15 years. A recent Congressional Budget report shows that 10% of wealthy Americans control 60% of the nation’s wealth. While this disparity has always been apparent throughout U.S. history, it has grown in the past 40 years. These reports and similar ones may partially explain the increase in the number of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) winning some elections. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, representing N.Y. in Congress and Rashida Tlaib from Minnesota, along with Zohran Mamdani, the Mayor of New York City, are relative newcomers to political office and are all members of the American Democratic Socialists, as is Abdul El-Sayed, who won the recent primary in Michigan. Given these developments, it is quite natural for those who follow political trends to conclude that the country is moving toward socialism. Can this be? Probably not. America has gone through this before. Depending on who is counting, there have been as many as forty-eight recessions in the U.S. dating back to the Articles of Confederation. During these times and others, there have always been politicians who point to income inequality as the reason for the nation’s woes. Their remedies are numerous and include everything from the disillusionment of the Central Bank to guaranteed income for all Americans. Most opt for more central control of the economy. This is not to suggest that public attitudes and perceptions about income inequality should be ignored. When citizens feel that regressive policies that distribute income and wealth unfairly are put into place, they can be convinced by pundits and politicians to enact draconian policies. Such policies have almost always inhibited rather than stimulated economic growth, resulting in less prosperity for all. Changes in tax policies, which obviously lead to greater income inequality, are cases in point, but because such policies are often vigorously debated in Congress and in the press, their inherent negative impact on income distribution is at least discussed. Less obvious are policies put into place that have unintended consequences that come to light long after the policy is enacted. A good example is the recent growth in “supersized” IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts). IRAs were created in 1974 to help working Americans save for their retirement by allowing their savings to be tax-deferred until withdrawn after retirement. Recently, very wealthy individuals, who have access to investment opportunities unavailable to average Americans, have been stashing these investment returns into tax-deferred IRAs. Not only does this lead to regressive income distribution today, but it assures greater income inequality tomorrow. It also exacerbates Federal deficits, which leads to greater inflation that impacts lower-income Americans more than wealthy ones. This issue could be addressed by amending the very well-intentioned initial IRA policy to preclude the growth of “supersized” IRAs. It is only one of many remedies directed at addressing the real and sometimes perceived legislative and executive orders that emerge. There will always be special interests that press for policies that favor one income group over another. Some are blatant, some are less so. When considering and pondering their implications, policymakers need to pay greater attention to the actual and perceived ways in which tax and other policies are understood by Americans. While very much a remote possibility, those on the far left can make significant gains when the public feels that income inequality is raising its ugly head. There cannot and should not be a perfectly equal distribution of wealth in this country, but why bait those who press for it by enacting legislation that purposely or inadvertently creates less of it? Michael A. MacDowell is President Emeritus of Misericordia University and is a director of the Calvin K. Kazanjian Foundation. Local journalism matters, and your support makes it possible. You can help sustain this work by making a donation or choosing one of our subscription options. Subscribers enjoy valuable benefits, including full access to our e-edition, a reduced ad experience on timesleader.com, and more. Your support helps ensure independent, high-quality local news remains available today and for future generations. Thank you for standing with local journalism. Michael A. MacDowell is President Emeritus of Misericordia University and is a director of the Calvin K. Kazanjian Foundation.