Jack-o-latern

Image via Wikipedia

As the Witching Hour nears, and as I keep writing this damn essay, I want you to think about something.

Who do you give sweets to on Halloween?

Everyone? Or just a select few?

The neediest? Or the kid with a chauffeur taking him from house to house?

See, if you believe in trickle down economics, the idea that tax cuts for the wealthiest will eventually benefit everyone in society by improving the economy, surely you should give all your sweets to the rich kid?

Because, of course, his accumulation of the sweets will benefit the entire Trick or Treat community. Because, of course, he will share them fairly with friends and enemies alike. Because, of course, his wealth of sweets will help the entire society.

Or not.

Because, you know, he doesn’t. He keeps the sweets himself, and eats them. He consumes the majority of resources, and leaves the majority of the populace to suffer.

This is the essential message of the 99% movement (on a side note, don’t forget that almost every American is part of the global 1% of wealthiest people). Accumulation of wealth does not get redistributed, and the actual gap in living-standards will only increase. Though we may see the country getting richer in and of itself, I cannot see how the system will improve living conditions for the majority.

Admittedly, I’m simplifying the whole concept for the benefit of a handy holiday analogy.

But admit it, you give the sweets, equally, to every kid. Every last one. Equally. Perhaps we give a little more to the kid with the best costumes. But we make sure each kid has at least the basic level of sweets.

Why can’t we do the same with money?

Advertisements