In the previous article, "Income Inequality in America: Welcome to the American Plutocracy," the current income inequality situation was established and a plutocracy was defined and made evident. Here it is explored how income inequality and the future plutocracy can affect America's monetary movement and economy:
In the 1980's, President Ronald Reagan championed trickle-down economics; arguably starting today’s income gap. His 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act meant to benefit businesses with its tax cut on multimillion-dollar estates from 70 percent to 50 percent. Proponents of the trickle-down theory, like President Reagan, believe corporations should control the distribution of cash reinvested in the public.
The reality is corporate executives did not reinvest in the public. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the average pretax income for the bottom 90 percent is $900 below what it was in 1979, while the top one percent saw an increase of over $700,000. The top earners are keeping the money for themselves and preventing the rest of America from earning more. The trend has continued following Reagan in the 90's and 2000's.
Tax-breaks from the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations fuel the current income disparity. During those administrations, the wealthiest ten percent were consuming half of all income and were able to bribe legislators for more tax breaks and loopholes. Loopholes allow top earners to manipulate the tax system to keep more income than they should. David Johnston of the Association of Alternative Newsmedia reports a 1993 law passed by President Clinton allows real estate investors to, “use paper losses like depreciation on their buildings against any cash income.” President-elect Donald Trump, among other billionaires, have used this to not pay income taxes for years.
More tax deregulations were made under Clinton’s successor, President George W. Bush. Under Bush, massive tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003 under the assumption that excessive regulation impedes economic growth, but the economy under Bush did not grow: it crashed in 2007. It did grow for the top one percent, however. Following the 2007 recession, incomes for the top one percent grew by 31 percent, the rest gained less than a one percent increase.
Under Obama, the economy has improved since the recession, but most gains are going to the top ten percent of Americans; making income inequality still a problem, and allowing the wealthy to take complete authority over the next administration. It's likely to assume that the president-elect's billion-dollar plutocracy is not going to try to balance the income gap so the majority of wealth is concentrated in the middle 60 percent of Americans. How the plutocracy will increase economic growth for middle and lower class citizens remains to be seen, but if maintaining this gap in income inequality a part of the answer, it's not helpful to America.
Economic growth is disrupted by income inequality. Trickle-down economics gives carte blanche for corporations to regulate monetary and economic operations. This does not benefit Americans, only the greedy consumers. Without government regulations on businesses, things like automatons and outsourcing will replace many middle-class jobs. Deals like the TPP and NAFTA have done so. They help companies make more in profit, but certainly does not help common Americans: it takes away jobs.
Advocates for outsourcing, like Capgemini Consulting, claims businesses can lower production costs for more supply of a quality product and more profitability. While this makes products cheaper to sell, the problem is that it takes American jobs and ships them overseas; leaving millions of Americans unemployed.
If outsourcing continues, then more Americans are left unemployed. Unemployment then leads to poverty, and poverty leads to trends that harms not only the poor, but the entire nation. One area where Trump deserves applause is his campaign to cut outsourcing and reverse poor international trade deals. Hopefully, the president-elect maintains his promise to preserve American jobs; unlike administrations in the past. However, as long as income inequality is a problem, the less able the poor will socially mobilize; which will be discussed in the next article.
