Today, the United States has a state of affairs where corporations that clamor for lower tax burdens during normal times run to the government for bailouts during crises. The basic scenario is one where some bungling executives and a parasitic rich class want a government cushion without shouldering a fair share of responsibility. The reputation of the American private sector is badly dented, the quality of its managerial abilities is seriously in doubt and its willingness to shoulder the country’s fiscal burdens are at very low levels ( with all due respect to those exceptions in the corporate sector who believe in paying enough taxes to sustain a modern welfare system and to pay for other government expenditures ).
In the United States, several big corporations have obtained massive bailouts from the government on numerous occasions. They have ranged from automobile manufacturers to airlines and financial firms. Yet, the same corporate sector lobbies the government for large tax cuts. In other words, we have a serious situation of “ socialism for the rich “, that is, insurance without responsibility. In other words, the economic class that reaps the bulk of corporate profits, and refuses to pay a decent part of it to solve the deficit or to keep the welfare system solvent well into the future or to pay for expensive wars, has no compunctions getting bailouts and loan guarantees from the public when the free market system encounters difficulty. If I had to invent a term for it, I would probably call it the “ parasitism of the opulent “. A country that tolerates this kind of parasitism of the opulent runs a serious risk of social disturbances. Bailouts are a moral dilemma that the United States is confronted with on several occasions because the same corporate class that refuses to contribute enough for the welfare system also displays ineptitude and recklessness.
A more sustainable system would be where the corporations and high income-earners pay higher taxes to shoulder a larger share of the fiscal burden and the corporations that encounter problems can then be bailed out. The fact that the public bails out these companies, gets spurious or questionable assurances of compensation from these companies during good times and does not get enough from the corporate system as a whole in terms of tax revenue during normal times points to a parasitic mentality on the part of our elite. Timid frameworks like partial ownership that can give claims over parts of the profit when very sick companies recover are not sufficient compensation for a public that bails these companies out. The corporate sector needs to make higher contributions to the budget in a sustained and persistent manner in order to deserve these bailouts. The current state of affairs is extremely hypocritical. And it also needs to be kept in mind that these bailouts cannot always be avoided. During crisis times, the possibility of economic collapse often makes the bailouts necessary.
There is something repugnant about the corporate sector getting vast amounts of help from society without contributing its due. And that is exactly what has been happening in recent times. And the politicians that pander to this sector by giving elitist tax cuts that lead to deep fiscal problems help perpetuate this ridiculous state of affairs. The public needs to realize that a corporate sector that is prone to failure, be it Chrysler in the 1980s or be it the financial sector in 2008-2009 or be it some motor car companies in 2008-2009, and needs gargantuan levels of help from the government during crises, needs to pay higher taxes to shoulder a larger share of the public’s fiscal burdens. Let us have necessary bailouts with higher tax responsibilities during good times, but not bailouts with insufficient tax contributions during good times.
In the United States, several big corporations have obtained massive bailouts from the government on numerous occasions. They have ranged from automobile manufacturers to airlines and financial firms. Yet, the same corporate sector lobbies the government for large tax cuts. In other words, we have a serious situation of “ socialism for the rich “, that is, insurance without responsibility. In other words, the economic class that reaps the bulk of corporate profits, and refuses to pay a decent part of it to solve the deficit or to keep the welfare system solvent well into the future or to pay for expensive wars, has no compunctions getting bailouts and loan guarantees from the public when the free market system encounters difficulty. If I had to invent a term for it, I would probably call it the “ parasitism of the opulent “. A country that tolerates this kind of parasitism of the opulent runs a serious risk of social disturbances. Bailouts are a moral dilemma that the United States is confronted with on several occasions because the same corporate class that refuses to contribute enough for the welfare system also displays ineptitude and recklessness.
A more sustainable system would be where the corporations and high income-earners pay higher taxes to shoulder a larger share of the fiscal burden and the corporations that encounter problems can then be bailed out. The fact that the public bails out these companies, gets spurious or questionable assurances of compensation from these companies during good times and does not get enough from the corporate system as a whole in terms of tax revenue during normal times points to a parasitic mentality on the part of our elite. Timid frameworks like partial ownership that can give claims over parts of the profit when very sick companies recover are not sufficient compensation for a public that bails these companies out. The corporate sector needs to make higher contributions to the budget in a sustained and persistent manner in order to deserve these bailouts. The current state of affairs is extremely hypocritical. And it also needs to be kept in mind that these bailouts cannot always be avoided. During crisis times, the possibility of economic collapse often makes the bailouts necessary.
There is something repugnant about the corporate sector getting vast amounts of help from society without contributing its due. And that is exactly what has been happening in recent times. And the politicians that pander to this sector by giving elitist tax cuts that lead to deep fiscal problems help perpetuate this ridiculous state of affairs. The public needs to realize that a corporate sector that is prone to failure, be it Chrysler in the 1980s or be it the financial sector in 2008-2009 or be it some motor car companies in 2008-2009, and needs gargantuan levels of help from the government during crises, needs to pay higher taxes to shoulder a larger share of the public’s fiscal burdens. Let us have necessary bailouts with higher tax responsibilities during good times, but not bailouts with insufficient tax contributions during good times.