Out of context

The Oklahoman has been pretty banal in its letters of late. Sure, they're run screeds by people making utterly fatuous arguments about gun control, or about immigration. But not much has appeared that's been so egregious.

Today, however, they return to their plutocratic propagandistic ways in a letter from Tom Locke of Ardmore. Parroting lines form the fabulously wealthy who dominate right wing media, Locke writes,

I've heard President Obama say that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share and that their secretaries are paying a higher tax rate. So I decided to check these allegations for accuracy. The IRS website provides the following information based on 2010 data:

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay 2.7 percent of the total taxes with an average tax rate of 2.59 percent of their income. The next 25 percent of taxpayers pay 10.96 percent of the total taxes with an average rate of 6.75 percent. This is what most consider to be middle class. The top 25 percent pay 86.34 percent of total taxes with an average tax rate of 15.68 percent. The really wealthy that the president speaks of — the top 1 percent — pay 38.02 percent with an average rate of 23.27 percent. 

Wow. Sounds really impressive. Indeed, were one so stupid as to look at just this, it would be a compelling argument in favor of the Oklahoman's headline: "Obama's wrong; wealthy pay their fair share." But while Mr. Locke may actually be stupid, the rest of us know that there's more to the story, and that context matters.

One way to contextualize this is to look not just at what people pay in taxes, but how much they have. And the reality is quite clear: income inequality right now is as great as it's ever been in modern American history. Yes, the top 25% pay a lot in taxes-- and the top 1% pays even more. But that's because they're so fucking rich, that stupid people like Tom Lock of Ardmore can't even comprehend it. Seriously. Look at this chart:

That's right. While the typical family in 2010 was pulling in $57,000, the top 1% were pulling in $16,439,000. That's 288 times the median. 288 times. That's bad enough, but compared to the early 80's (and the effects of St. Reagan's tax cuts), it's even worse.

So yes, Mr. Locke, context matters. Too bad you're too stupid to know that, and too bad that you've bought into the right wing media machine's hype. Sadly, the Oklahoman is part of that, and they're all too happy to print these sorts of lies and half-truths in the hope that other stupid Oklahomans will similarly be outraged that the rich might pay more in taxes.

The question of what's "fair" or not is one that should be discussed openly. But my guess is that if people were given the truth-- that achieving the "American Dream" used to be possible and now it's much harder for anyone but the already wealthy because the system's been gamed in their favor-- they might be more willing to tax those people a bit more. But democracy works best when people are informed, and the plutocracy for which the Oklahoman serves does its best to make sure that people are as uninformed as possible.