Imperialism and Hegemony in Global Finance intent of the neoliberal program'67 For LIGs the tax reforms had significant benefits,including shifting away from policies that favoured landlords and 1sn6m towards the introduction of mortgage interest payment deductions from tax liabil- ities for owner-occupiers that were scaled to favour LIGs.68 Furthermore the net effect of the tax reforms was to significantly increase the taxes paid by the top 10 per cent of income earners (in part due to the removal of benefits and exemp- tions,as well as high reliance on personal income tax compared to other states),so that in 1988 the top 10 per cent of income earners began to pay slightly more than half of all income tax.9 LIGs at the bottom end of the scale paid less tax, especially those who had access to property. On top of the 1986 reforms,the tax reforms of Bill Clinton's administration were progressive.The 1993 reforms increased the top personal rate from 31 to 39 per cent and created a new 36 per cent tax bracket for upper-level incomes. In addition,1997 tax reforms lowered the income tax rate for low-income groups and put in place a four-fold increase in tax subsidies to very low-income 益 groups.70 Reforms to the Earned Income Tax Credit system also raised the incomes of the poor.All of these changes could be seen in legitimacy claims, chiefly from Democrats,to provide relief as redistribution to LIGs.As such, reforms provided relief especially to the 'nearly there'entrepreneurial LIGs.So while the tax reforms did not,by any means,sufficiently address income inequal- ity,LIGs were given lower tax burdens if they could also access property and credit.Such policies reflected strong entrepreneurial social norms in the USA that those deserving of help from the state are those who first help themselves. US property politics During the late 1970s,urban decline prompted a number of LIGs advocacy groups to organise and rally for 'fair housing'.Following the S&L and commercial bank crises of the 1980s,LIGs'expectations in securing assets such as property were both threatened and heightened,as was their frustration with how changes in the financial system were being dealt with in relation to a squeeze on private and public housing.As a consequence,in the mid 1980s and early 1990s there was renewed contestation from advocacy groups on 'fair housing'that was directly tied to a discourse on civil rights.In response to these impulses,the US government sought to propagate the notion that it could create an 'efficient and equitable financial structure...to legitimize itself in the eyes of the public'. In addition to heightened expectations,groups such as the Association of Com- munity Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)forcibly occupied housing financially abandoned after S&L collapses,and tied red ribbons around commer- cial banks accused of unfair housing practices and racial discrimination.Such activism from everyday actors provided impulses to Congressional committees, where Democratic control of both the House and the Senate during this period was of great benefit in coupling pro-community fair housing with financial re- regulation.For example,financial system legislation in 1989 included an Afford- able Housing Program directly targeted to low-income groups and which sought to redistribute access and assets to LIGs.3Furthermore,the 1989 emboldening of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act(HMDA)of 1975 required banks to provide data 9Downloaded By: [University of Sydney] At: 02:46 7 August 2007 intent of the neoliberal program’.67 For LIGs the tax reforms had significant benefits, including shifting away from policies that favoured landlords and towards the introduction of mortgage interest payment deductions from tax liabil￾ities for owner-occupiers that were scaled to favour LIGs.68 Furthermore the net effect of the tax reforms was to significantly increase the taxes paid by the top 10 per cent of income earners (in part due to the removal of benefits and exemp￾tions, as well as high reliance on personal income tax compared to other states), so that in 1988 the top 10 per cent of income earners began to pay slightly more than half of all income tax.69 LIGs at the bottom end of the scale paid less tax, especially those who had access to property. On top of the 1986 reforms, the tax reforms of Bill Clinton’s administration were progressive. The 1993 reforms increased the top personal rate from 31 to 39 per cent and created a new 36 per cent tax bracket for upper-level incomes. In addition, 1997 tax reforms lowered the income tax rate for low-income groups and put in place a four-fold increase in tax subsidies to very low-income groups.70 Reforms to the Earned Income Tax Credit system also raised the incomes of the poor. All of these changes could be seen in legitimacy claims, chiefly from Democrats, to provide relief as redistribution to LIGs. As such, reforms provided relief especially to the ‘nearly there’ entrepreneurial LIGs. So while the tax reforms did not, by any means, sufficiently address income inequal￾ity, LIGs were given lower tax burdens if they could also access property and credit. Such policies reflected strong entrepreneurial social norms in the USA – that those deserving of help from the state are those who first help themselves. US property politics During the late 1970s, urban decline prompted a number of LIGs advocacy groups to organise and rally for ‘fair housing’. Following the S&L and commercial bank crises of the 1980s, LIGs’ expectations in securing assets such as property were both threatened and heightened, as was their frustration with how changes in the financial system were being dealt with in relation to a squeeze on private and public housing. As a consequence, in the mid 1980s and early 1990s there was renewed contestation from advocacy groups on ‘fair housing’ that was directly tied to a discourse on civil rights. In response to these impulses, the US government sought to propagate the notion that it could create an ‘efficient and equitable financial structure ... to legitimize itself in the eyes of the public’.71 In addition to heightened expectations, groups such as the Association of Com￾munity Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) forcibly occupied housing financially abandoned after S&L collapses, and tied red ribbons around commer￾cial banks accused of unfair housing practices and racial discrimination.72 Such activism from everyday actors provided impulses to Congressional committees, where Democratic control of both the House and the Senate during this period was of great benefit in coupling pro-community fair housing with financial re￾regulation. For example, financial system legislation in 1989 included an Afford￾able Housing Program directly targeted to low-income groups and which sought to redistribute access and assets to LIGs.73 Furthermore, the 1989 emboldening of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) of 1975 required banks to provide data Imperialism and Hegemony in Global Finance 9