Joe the Plumber and the Golden Ticket
I was in the car shortly after the debate, listening to NPR (oh quiet, you). The topic was Joe the Plumber.
In short: Joe is thinking of buying a plumbing business. It makes $250,000. His argument with Obama was that higher taxes on high earners discourages success like his.
Obama, both in the video and in the debate, makes a few good arguments. I'll ignore most of them and focus in on one particular exchange. Forgive the possibly inaccurate transcription.
On NPR, the commentator refered to this as an example of the "new culture wars", Joe being an example of the Palin mindset: high earners deserve their rightfully earned spoils. And while there's a public perception of Palin being representative of a rural and uncultured voting bloc, he also interestingly noted that both Palin and Joe are, compared to other Americans, high income earners. It's no longer about comfortable urban liberals against rural working-class voters.
It seems the two competing principles are:
But how much inequality is justified? It isn't meritocratic for access to education to be dependent on a child's family's wealth. It isn't a level playing field when endowments of capital are concentrated. And at some point, wealth concentration is just inefficient monopolization.
At heart is a deep-rooted defense of the "golden ticket". Even if it's not in their immediate economic interest, low- and middle-wage Americans have a propensity to defend the status quo on the assumption of social mobility -- that, one day, they might also be high-wage earners.
Of course, that system starts failing if those not on top start losing faith in social mobility. There has arguably been more of a willingness of the electorate to accept a more involved role of government in general and, specific to this topic, to encourage and enable upward migration in social class.
Anyway, the Economist has an good article on the topic (and it is surely better written than my post): Inequality and the American Dream. It is, with brazen flaunting of copyright, provided in its entirety here.
Update: Everybody gets his fifteen minutes, and sometimes the spotlight draws unwanted attention. It seems that Joe is unlicensed and owes back taxes. Say it ain't so, Joe.
In short: Joe is thinking of buying a plumbing business. It makes $250,000. His argument with Obama was that higher taxes on high earners discourages success like his.
Obama, both in the video and in the debate, makes a few good arguments. I'll ignore most of them and focus in on one particular exchange. Forgive the possibly inaccurate transcription.
Joe: Now, if I buy another truck and add something else to it and, you know, build the company, I'm getting taxed more and more for fulfilling the American Dream.
Obama: Here's a way of thinking about it: how long have you been a plumber? How long have you been working?
Joe: Fifteen years.
Obama: Okay, so over the last fifteen years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money which means you would have saved more, which means that you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code.
On NPR, the commentator refered to this as an example of the "new culture wars", Joe being an example of the Palin mindset: high earners deserve their rightfully earned spoils. And while there's a public perception of Palin being representative of a rural and uncultured voting bloc, he also interestingly noted that both Palin and Joe are, compared to other Americans, high income earners. It's no longer about comfortable urban liberals against rural working-class voters.
It seems the two competing principles are:
- Don't punish success and achievement.
- Provide a level, meritocratic playing field and social mobility.
But how much inequality is justified? It isn't meritocratic for access to education to be dependent on a child's family's wealth. It isn't a level playing field when endowments of capital are concentrated. And at some point, wealth concentration is just inefficient monopolization.
At heart is a deep-rooted defense of the "golden ticket". Even if it's not in their immediate economic interest, low- and middle-wage Americans have a propensity to defend the status quo on the assumption of social mobility -- that, one day, they might also be high-wage earners.
Of course, that system starts failing if those not on top start losing faith in social mobility. There has arguably been more of a willingness of the electorate to accept a more involved role of government in general and, specific to this topic, to encourage and enable upward migration in social class.
Anyway, the Economist has an good article on the topic (and it is surely better written than my post): Inequality and the American Dream. It is, with brazen flaunting of copyright, provided in its entirety here.
Update: Everybody gets his fifteen minutes, and sometimes the spotlight draws unwanted attention. It seems that Joe is unlicensed and owes back taxes. Say it ain't so, Joe.
