Abstract
This chapter discusses inequality and its legitimation. It describes the multilevel and multidimensional character of inequality. It also offers an extensive treatment of legitimacy, legitimacy processes and the multiple-source, multiple-object legitimacy theory. The processes through which inequality is legitimized are illustrated by applying the theory to contemporary affirmative action procedures. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Senator Obama and Wurzelbacher’s discussion rests on the premise that the proposed business would earn more than Joe’s current individual income.
- 2.
Color can be measured quantitatively and skin color exhibits a tremendous range from very dark to very light or almost no pigmentation. Skin color is used as a primary marker of race or ethnicity in many societies but most classification schemes use poorly-defined categories (e.g., black, brown, white, etc.). Importantly, pigmentation varies so greatly within race and ethnic groups that it is essentially useless as an identifier (Jablonski 2004).
- 3.
The social construction of hierarchical rankings on categorical and ordinal differences like height, skin color or sex is discussed below and in other chapters in this volume. (See chapters by, Ridgeway and Nakagawa, and Wilkins, Mollborn, and Bó.)
- 4.
In keeping with the subject matter of this volume, it is more accurate to claim that the two men have different racial identities.
- 5.
Distinctions drawn between macrosociological, organizational and microsociological conceptions of legitimacy are generally matters of emphasis rather than fundamental substantive differences. As an example, group processes researchers predict high levels of behavioral consistency among members of groups for which a majority acknowledges the legitimacy of rules that apply to their actions. Students of political processes make similar predictions although they may focus on cross-societal comparisons of the relationship between social stability and aggregated (e.g., national) acknowledgment of the legitimacy of constitutional provisions.
- 6.
Cancian (1975) classifies norms as ranking norms, membership norms and reality assumptions on the basis of their range. Ranking norms are standards used to differentially evaluate actions or individuals. Membership norms are rules that define the desirable attributes and actions of members of rule-governed groups. Reality assumptions are rules or standards that describe desirable characteristics of situations, roles or identities.
- 7.
The language of Roth and Wittich’s popular translation of Weber ([1918] 1968) illustrates the conflation. “Action, especially social action which involves a social relationship, may be guided by the belief [emphasis added] in the existence of a legitimate order. The probability that action will actually be so governed will be called the ‘validity’ ( Geltung) of the order in question.” ([1918] 1968, p. 31). See also Henderson and Parsons’ earlier but very similar translation (Weber [1918] 1964, p. 126).
- 8.
Stryker’s (1990, 1994) writings about government agencies and social policy suggest that consideration should be given to science as a fourth basis of legitimation. Alternatively, modern scientific and legal practices are intertwined and legitimation-by-science can be considered a special case of rational-legal justification.
- 9.
Laws and norms change and transitions from one set of rules to another are often troublesome and fraught with difficulty. As an example, consider changing definitions of the family (e.g., the inclusion of same-sex couples and their children or polygamous relationships) and controversies about their legality and legitimacy.
- 10.
Measuring support for the law is difficult because expressions of support vary substantially with the wording of survey questions (Best and McDermott 2007).
- 11.
Ideologies certainly have motive force at the individual level because they can gain propriety. Groups of individuals who attribute propriety to ideologies can form movements, one goal of which may be to establish elements of those ideologies as valid regimes (e.g., a dictatorship of the proletariat).
- 12.
Zelditch and Walker (2003; Walker 2004, 2005) use the term “accepted legitimizing element” in earlier writings. The meaning of “accepted” is ambiguous; acceptance can imply that group members positively evaluate an element. However, if the idea refers to validity, “acknowledge” is a more reasonable term. Actors can acknowledge that an element or regime exists and that it governs their actions without positively evaluating it.
- 13.
The legitimation assumption surveys the world from the point of view of members of a focal system. Any interests to which it refers are perceived rather than “real” interests.
- 14.
Signs and conjurer’s visions are valid knowledge in some societies and, as such, are perfectly acceptable bases of legitimacy.
- 15.
- 16.
The bracketed phrase was penciled in on the original typescript.
- 17.
Kennedy and Johnson’s orders are considered major milestones in U. S. civil rights law because they extended anti-discrimination law to the general population. However; focusing on their actions should not be interpreted as neglect of the contributions of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower who served between Roosevelt and Kennedy. Both made important contributions to an emerging anti-discrimination regime. President Truman issued an executive order that required integration of the U. S. armed forces and Eisenhower used an executive order to ensure implementation of the policy Truman authorized.
- 18.
The old regime defined a system of race inequality that permitted and, in some cases required, race discrimination. It was also considered consonant with the same documents. The beliefs and writings of numerous segregationists as well as landmark decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)) “established” and legitimized the secondary status of blacks and other classes of U. S. residents. However, after Brown v. (Topeka) Board of Education, race discrimination was rendered inconsistent with the founding documents and the old regime’s legitimacy was increasingly contested.
- 19.
See Glazer (1975) for a thorough discussion of this issue.
- 20.
President Kennedy created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity the forerunner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On a personal note, in early 1962, a local branch of the state employment service asked me to apply for a job that blacks had previously been denied the opportunity to fill. The opportunity to apply for and eventually to fill the position, were a direct result of the intervention of local civil rights organizations and local application of President Kennedy’s order.
- 21.
These data illustrate the often confusing relationship between consensus and endorsement. The data reflect a failure of endorsement rather than a lack of consensual acknowledgement of the regime. Respondents acknowledge (i.e., take notice of) policies that reflect the Equal Results Regime and orient their actions to it. In that sense, the policies are institutionalized consistent with Parsons’ (1964) use of the term or Mauss’ (1975) description of the institutionalization phase of social movements. Uncovering motives for compliance is the only true test of the regime’s validity. Compliance out of a sense of obligation follows from legitimacy (validity) whereas compliance to gain rewards or avoid sanctions does not.
- 22.
The claim that heterogeneity is beneficial is more general than it appears on its face. The University of Michigan and its law school are not the only “beneficiaries” of invidious discrimination under the logic of the Grutter decision. So too are its majority and minority students whose learning is enhanced by greater “diversity.” President Obama’s claim that progressive taxation benefits all expresses a similar view. Elsewhere, I (Walker 1999) have described how theory—including Legitimacy Theory—implies that such policies have long-term disadvantages for members of minority groups and for race relations more generally. Occasionally, the popular press takes a similar position (cf. Henninger 2012).
- 23.
The process described here is a slight revision of the policy process described by Zelditch et al. (1983). See their Fig. 1 for a graphic representation.
- 24.
Justice Kagan, an Obama appointee, has recused herself from the case.
- 25.
Derision and ridicule have proved to be useful tactics in political contests. Their use is encouraged and legitimized in some circles by the fifth rule of power tactics put forward in Alinsky’s (1971, p. 128) handbook for community organizers: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
References
Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
American National Election Studies. (2010). Time series cumulative data file (1948–2008). Stanford University and the University of Michigan (producers and distributors). www.electionstudies.org. Accessed 5 October 2012.
Aristotle. ([350 BC] 1908). Ethics. (Trans: W. D. Ross) & J. A. Smith (Intro.). Oxford: Clarendon.
Aristotle. ([353 BC] 1943). Politics. (Trans: B. Jowett ) & M. Lerner (Intro.). New York: Modern Library.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann.T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.
Best, S. J., & McDermott.M. (2007). Measuring opinions vs. non-opinions—the case of the USA patriot act. The Forum, 5(2), 1–27.
Blumer, H. 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7.
Borch, C., & Willer.D. (2006). Power, embedded games, and coalition formation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 30, 77–111.
Brown v. Board of Education. (1954). 347 U.S. 483.
Burke, P. J. (1967). The development of task and social-emotional role differentiation. American Sociological Review, 30, 379–392.
Burke, P. J. (1968). Role differentiation and the legitimation of task activity. Sociometry, 31, 404–411.
Cancian, F. (1975). What are norms? New York: Cambridge University Press.
Comte, A. ([1865] 1957). A general view of positivism (Trans:J. H. Bridges). New York: R. Speller.
Cook, K. S. (1975). Expectations, evaluations and equity. American Sociological Review, 40, 372–388.
Davis, K., & Moore,W. E. (1945). Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review, 10, 242–249.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 161–193.
Della Fave, L. R. (1980). The meek shall not inherit the earth. American Sociological Review, 45, 955–971.
Della Fave, L. R. (1986). Toward an explication of the legitimation process. Social Forces, 65, 476–500.
Dornbusch, S. M., & Scott, W. R. (1975). Evaluation and the exercise of authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Durkheim, E. ([1893] 1933). The division of labor in society. (Trans: G. Simpson). New York: Macmillan.
Engels, F. ([1884] 2001). The origin of the family, private property and the state. London: The Electric Book Company, LTD.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.
Executive Order No. 8802. (1941). 6 FR 3109.
Executive Order No. 10925. (1961). 26 FR 1977.
Executive Order No. 11246. (1965). 30 FR 12319 .
Fields, B. J. (1990). Slavery, race and ideology in the United States of America. New Left Review, I/181, 95–118.
Fisher v. University of Texas. (2011). 631F. 3d 213 (5th Cir.).
Franklin, J. H. (1994). Reconstruction after the civil war. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Glazer, N. (1975). Affirmative discrimination. Cambridge: Harvard.
Gratz v. Bollinger. (2003). 539 U.S. 244.
Grutter v. Bollinger. (2003). 539 U.S. 306.
Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. W. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hechter, M. (2009). Alien rules and its discontents. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 289–310.
Henninger, D. (2012). The racializing of American politics. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324205404578147360260072602. Accessed 29 November 2012.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.
Horne, C. (2009). A social norms approach to legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 400–415.
Jablonski, N. (2004). The evolution of human skin and skin color. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 585–623.
Jackson, J. (1965). Structural characteristics of norms. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 301–309). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Klarman, M. (2005). Why massive resistance? In C. Webb (Ed.), Massive resistance: Southern opposition to the second reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69–105.
Lipset, S. M. (1963). The first new nation. New York: Basic Books.
Locke, J. ([1690] 1982). An essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government. R. H. Cox (Ed.). Arlington Heights: H. Davidson.
Marx, K. ([1867] 1967). Capital. New York: International Publishers Inc.
Marx, K. ([1875] 2001). Critique of the Gotha programme. London: The Electric Book Company, Ltd.
Marx, K., & Engels F. ([1845] 1939). The German ideology, parts I and III. R. Pascal (Ed.). New York: International Publishers Inc.
Matheson, C. (1987). Weber and the classification of forms of legitimacy. British Journal of Sociology, 38, 199–215.
Mauss, A. (1975). Social problems as social movements. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1212–1241.
Meyer, J. W., & B. Rowan. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–63.
Oxford University Press. (1971). The compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, T. (1940). An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. American Journal of Sociology, 45, 841–862.
Parsons, T. (1958). Authority, legitimation, and political action. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Structure and process in modern societies (pp. 170–198). Glencoe: Free Press.
Parsons, T. ([1953] 1964). A revised analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Essays in sociological theory, Rev. ed. (pp. 386–439). New York: Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1964). The social system. New York: Free Press.
Plato. ([390 BC] 1941). The republic. (Trans. and Ed.: F. M. Cornford). London: Oxford University Press.
Plessy v. Ferguson. (1896). 163 U.S. 537.
Popper, K. R. ([1934] 1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Berger J. (1986). Expectations, legitimation, and dominance behavior in task groups. American Sociological Review, 51, 603–617.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker H. A. (1995). Status structures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rothstein, B. (2009). Creating political legitimacy: Electoral democracy versus quality of government. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 311–330.
Rousseau, J. J. ([1755] 1964). Discourse on the origin and foundation of inequality among mankind. In L. G. Crocker (Ed.), The social contract and discourse on the origin of inequality (pp. 149–258). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rousseau, J. J. ([1762] 1964). The social contract. In L. G. Crocker (Ed.), The social contract and discourse on the origin of inequality (pp. 5–147). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Scott v. Sandford. (1857). 60 U.S. 393.
Shaw, G. B. (1889). Fabian essays in socialism. London: The Fabian Society.
Shaw, G. B. (1944). Everybody’s political what’s what. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Simpson, B., & Walker H. A. (2002). Status characteristics and performance expectations: A theoretical reformulation.” Sociological Theory, 20, 24–40.
Skrentny, J. D. (1996). The ironies of affirmative action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smelser, N. (1963). Theory of collective behavior. New York: Free Press.
Smith, T. W., Marsden P. V., & Hout M. (2012). General social survey, 1972–2010 (Cumulative File). ICPSR31521-v1. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributors), 2011-08-05. doi:10.3886/ICPSR31521.v1.
Sowell, T. (1995). The vision of the anointed. New York: Basic Books.
Sowell, T. (2004). Affirmative action around the world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stryker, R. (1990). Science, class, and the welfare state: A class-centered functional account. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 684–726.
Stryker, R. (1994). Rules, resources, and legitimacy processes: Some implications for social conflict, order, and change. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 847–910.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Tampa Bay Times. (2008). Joe the plumber: A transcript. http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/article858299.ece. (Published 19 Oct 2008). Accessed 2 Dec 2012.
Thucydides. ([431 BC] 1934). The history of the Peloponnesian war. (Trans:R. Crawley) and J. Gavorse (Intro.). New York: Modern Library.
Troyer, L. (2011). Legitimacy. In G. Ritzer & J. M. Ryan (Eds.), The concise encyclopedia of sociology (p. 350). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
USA Patriot Act of Public Law. (2001). No. 107–56, 115 Statute 272.
Walker, H. A. (1999). Two faces of diversity: Recreating the stranger next door? In P. Moen, D. Dempster-McClain, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), A nation divided: diversity, inequality and community in American society (pp. 52–69). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walker, H. A. (2004). Beyond power and domination: Legitimacy in organizations. In C. Johnson (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 22, pp. 239–271). Oxford: Elsevier.
Walker, H. A. (2005). Exploring two frontiers: Developing and extending legitimacy theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 13–16, 2005, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Walker, H. A., Rogers L., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (2002). Acts, persons, positions, and institutions: Legitimizing multiple objects and compliance with authority. In S. C. Chew & J. D. Knottnerus, (Eds.), Structure, culture, and history: Recent issues in social theory (pp. 323–339). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Walker, H. A., & Willer D. (2007). Peer endorsement: Legitimizing collective action and countervailing power. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, New York, August 11, 2007.
Walker, H. A., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1993). Power, legitimation, and the stability of authority: A theoretical research program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), Theoretical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory (pp. 364–381). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Weber, M. ([1918] 1968). Economy and society. G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weber, M. ([1918] 1964). The theory of social and economic organization (Trans: A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons) and T. Parsons (Ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Younts, C. W. (2008). Status, endorsement and the legitimacy of deviance. Social Forces, 87, 561–590.
Zelditch, M. Jr. (2001). Theories of legitimacy. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 33–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zelditch, M. Jr., Harris W., Thomas G. M., & Walker H. A. (1983). Decisions, nondecisions, and metadecisions. In L. Kriesberg (Ed.), Research in social movements (Vol. 5, pp. 1–32).Greenwich: JAI Press.
Zelditch, M., & Walker H. A. (1998). Legitimacy and the stability of authority. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, power, and legitimacy (pp. 315–338). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Zelditch, M., & Walker H. A. (2003). The legitimacy of regimes. In S. R. Thye & J. Skvoretz (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 20, pp. 217–249). Oxford: Elsevier.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
This appendix is a verbatim transcript ( Tampa Bay Times 2008) of an interchange between Senator Barack H. Obama, II, the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nominee, and Samuel J. Wurzelbacher a resident of Toledo, Ohio. The interchange took place on October 12, 2008 as Senator Obama took a walking tour of a Toledo neighborhood.
Senator Barack H. Obama, II, (BHO): What’s your name?
Samuel J. Wurzelbacher (SJW): My name’s Joe Wurzelbacher.
BHO: Good to see you, Joe.
SJW: I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes about $ 250,000 . . . $ 270–280,000 a year.
BHO: All right.
SJW: Your new tax plan’s gonna tax me more, isn’t it?
BHO: Well, here’s what’s gonna happen. If you’re a small business which you would qualify as, first of all, you’d get a 50 % tax credit, so you get a cut on taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above $ 250,000, then from $ 250,000 down, your taxes are gonna stay the same. It is true that for . . . say, from $ 250,000 up, from $ 250,000 to 300,000 or so . . .
SJW: Well, here’s my question . . .
BHO: I just want to answer your question. So, for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39 %, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason we’re doing that is because 95 % of small businesses make less than $ 250,000 so what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less . . . I want to give them a tax cut and so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than $ 250,000 that that marginal amount above $ 250,000, they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36 % rate.
SJW: Well, the reason why I ask you about the American Dream I mean, I work hard. I’m a plumber, I work 10–12 hours a day . . .
BHO: Absolutely.
SJW: . . . and I’m, you know, buying this company and I’m gonna continue to work that way. Now, if I buy another truck and adding something else to it and, you know, build the company, you know, I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.
BHO: Well, here’s a way of thinking about it. How long have you been a plumber? How long have you been working?
SJW: 15 years.
BHO: Okay. So, over the last 15 years, when you weren’t making $ 250,000, 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. So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you’ve become more successful . . .
SJW: Through hard work.
BHO: Y through hard work, you don’t want to be taxed as much.
SJW: Exactly.
BHO: Which I understand. But another way of looking at it is, 95 % of folks who are making less than $ 250,000, they may be working hard, too, but they’re being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I’m doing is . . . you know, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever . . . $ 60,000 or $ 70,000. Under my tax plan, you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you’d be spending lower taxes, which means that you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are faster. Now, look, nobody likes high taxes, right? Of course not. But what’s happened is that we end up . . . we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than $ 250,000. We haven’t given a break to folks who make less and, as a consequence, the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last 8 years. So all I want to do is . . . I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes is, I’m going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and for the 5 % of the folks who are doing very well, even though they’ve been working hard . . . and I understand that; I appreciate that . . . I just want to make sure that they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect your disagreement, but I just want you to be clear. It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too.
SJW: It seems like you’d be welcome to a flat tax then.
BHO: You know, I would be open to it except for . . . here’s the problem with the flat tax. If you actually put a flat tax together, you’d probably . . . in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40 % sales tax. I mean, the value added, making it up. Now, some people say 23 or 25, but, in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who are, you know, have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who’s . . . things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. But, listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question. And even if I don’t get your vote, I’m still gonna be working hard on your behalf ’cause I want to make sure . . . small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it. All right. (applause) One other thing I didn’t mention. For small-business people, I’m gonna eliminate the capital gains tax, so what it means is if your business succeeds and let’s say you take it from a $ 250,000 business to a $ 500,000 business, that capital gains that you get, we’re not gonna tax you on it ’cause I want you to grow more so you’re actually going . . . you may end up . . . I’d have to look at your particular business but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain’s plan. I can’t guarantee that ’cause I’d have to take a look at your business.
SJW: Okay, I understand that.
BHO: All right. Thanks for the question, though. I appreciate it. Okay, guys, I gotta get out here. I’ve gotta go prepare for this debate. But that was pretty good timing. Thanks. (Last modified: Oct 23, 2008 07:11 PM)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Sciences + Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walker, H. (2014). Legitimacy and Inequality. In: McLeod, J., Lawler, E., Schwalbe, M. (eds) Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9001-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9002-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)