Charles Blow is deeply worried about Trump’s presidency and what it will do to American democracy. See “The Anti-Inauguration”, New York Times, 2017-01-05.
"Spend part of the day reading about the rise and fall of empires and how it always seems far-fetched and inconceivable until it actually happens. There are many books that address this topic, but if you want something shorter, try Andrew Sullivan’s 'Democracies End When They Are Too Democratic,' a counterintuitive meditation on how tyranny can spring from populism, or my colleague Paul Krugman’s 'How Republics End.’"
These two articles do take time to read, but if you care about a democracy for the many as opposed to a kleptocracy for the few you will be rewarded with some thoughts for protecting and enhancing democracy.
Showing posts with label rich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rich. Show all posts
Saturday, January 07, 2017
Saturday, June 20, 2015
From my clippings file
Every so often, I email an article to myself for future reference, often with the idea of writing a blog entry. Most likely I don’t get around to it. So, since I don’t have a hot topic in my head this week, I thought I’d muse about some of these clippings. Don’t worry, I won’t write about all 59, just enough to fill a Reader Weekly page.
One apropos to the attempts to take some auditing work from the State Auditor was a letter to the Duluth News Tribune by Paul and Susan Schurke of Ely. They praise Rebecca Otto for pointing out that nobody knows what the potential cost to taxpayers of new mines will be. Is it any wonder that the corporate-lovers in the Minnesota legislators want reduce Otto’s authority? Strange that this same crowd complains about taxes.
“Otto’s common sense mining position can unite us all.” Duluth News Tribune, 2013-12-09.
Pete Seeger wrote long ago that we have the best politicians: “We elect them again and again.” One of the reasons we elect them again and again is that a plutocracy finances too many elections. Plutocracy is government by the rich. “Capitalism vs. Democracy” by Thomas B. Edsall (http://nyti.ms/Msy71t) asks “Is deepening inequality inevitable? The case for a global wealth tax.” - New York Times, 2014-01-28. It is a review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”. Edsall quotes Piketty’s assertion “when pay setters set their own pay, there’s no limit”.
A reverse on a wealth tax is offered by D. J. Tice in “There’s no pot of gold for the working poor”, Star Tribune, 2014-02-09. His first suggestion is “to stop raising their taxes.” He also suggests expanding both the State and Federal Earned Income Tax Credit. He also writes that any hike in the minimum wage will probably result in fewer workers over the long term. Think of how you once bought an ice cream cone. Somebody bent over the freezer and scooped your choice into a cone. Now you can go to Chilly Billy’s and fill your own cup with your choice of frozen yogurt.
My answer to when pay setters won’t set their pay is when the sun sets in the East. Joe Nocera wrote about all the gimmicks that CEOs and their boards use to keep raising the CEOs pay to ridiculous levels. See “CEO Pay Goes Up, Up, and Away”, New York Times, 2014-04-14 (http://nyti.ms/1erLn2H). Shareholders can vote against boards that grant obscene pay, but they will probably be outvoted by institutional investors who exercise “fiduciary responsibility” by voting in management’s favor. Even if that responsibility were directed at reducing executive pay, current law says that “Say on Pay” is only an advisory; management doesn’t have to honor the shareholders vote.
Have you considered that the wealthy wield much more power than kings of old? Except they don’t need armies of soldiers to stay in power, just armies of lawyers and lobbyists.
You can know that things are out of control when a “conservative” columnist calls attention to the inequalities. My favorite “conservative” columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote “College, the Great Unequalizer”, New York Times, 2014-05-03 (http://nyti.ms/1kzuuRQ). He says that the Party Scene at many colleges benefits the well-heeled student and sucks in the “lower-status” student. The well-heeled can rescue those who practice an excess of vices, but the less-well-off can’t. The well-heeled will go on to social or economic success regardless of their performance. Others will rarely join that social class.
And the upper-class is finding many ways to get their way no matter the cost to the rest of society. It is well-known, to those who care, that the Koch Brothers through their American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are writing our laws in cahoots with Republican legislators. One of the current examples is “right-to-work” laws. Many of the laws are almost identical to what ALEC proposed. “Wisconsin’s law was a virtual copy of the 1995 model bill promoted by” ALEC. See “Scott Walker and the Fate of the Union”, New York Times, Dan Kaufman, 2015-06-12.
The article points out how the upper-class minions don’t care about much more than keeping their masters happy. The accident rate among workers is higher in right-to-work states. Scott Walker promised the president of the state-wide union of heavy machine operators that the “right-to-work bill” would not make it to his desk. Walker got his contribution and the labor guy lost Walker’s commitment.
How the Republican Party has changed! The 1956 Republican Party platform included “The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower administration.”
And it even gets worse. See “Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General”, Eric Lipton, New York Times, 2014-12-06. The attorneys general are sending letters of complaint about air pollution to the Environmental Protection Agency that are almost duplicates of letters written by the lawyers of energy companies. These attorneys general are getting huge campaign contributions from energy companies. Thanks to these contributions, 27 of the states’ attorneys general are Republicans. Who was it that wrote, “We have the best government money can buy”?
Or to blaspheme Abraham Lincoln, “A government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations shall not perish from the earth.” Or should it be “shall destroy the earth”?
One apropos to the attempts to take some auditing work from the State Auditor was a letter to the Duluth News Tribune by Paul and Susan Schurke of Ely. They praise Rebecca Otto for pointing out that nobody knows what the potential cost to taxpayers of new mines will be. Is it any wonder that the corporate-lovers in the Minnesota legislators want reduce Otto’s authority? Strange that this same crowd complains about taxes.
“Otto’s common sense mining position can unite us all.” Duluth News Tribune, 2013-12-09.
Pete Seeger wrote long ago that we have the best politicians: “We elect them again and again.” One of the reasons we elect them again and again is that a plutocracy finances too many elections. Plutocracy is government by the rich. “Capitalism vs. Democracy” by Thomas B. Edsall (http://nyti.ms/Msy71t) asks “Is deepening inequality inevitable? The case for a global wealth tax.” - New York Times, 2014-01-28. It is a review of Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”. Edsall quotes Piketty’s assertion “when pay setters set their own pay, there’s no limit”.
A reverse on a wealth tax is offered by D. J. Tice in “There’s no pot of gold for the working poor”, Star Tribune, 2014-02-09. His first suggestion is “to stop raising their taxes.” He also suggests expanding both the State and Federal Earned Income Tax Credit. He also writes that any hike in the minimum wage will probably result in fewer workers over the long term. Think of how you once bought an ice cream cone. Somebody bent over the freezer and scooped your choice into a cone. Now you can go to Chilly Billy’s and fill your own cup with your choice of frozen yogurt.
My answer to when pay setters won’t set their pay is when the sun sets in the East. Joe Nocera wrote about all the gimmicks that CEOs and their boards use to keep raising the CEOs pay to ridiculous levels. See “CEO Pay Goes Up, Up, and Away”, New York Times, 2014-04-14 (http://nyti.ms/1erLn2H). Shareholders can vote against boards that grant obscene pay, but they will probably be outvoted by institutional investors who exercise “fiduciary responsibility” by voting in management’s favor. Even if that responsibility were directed at reducing executive pay, current law says that “Say on Pay” is only an advisory; management doesn’t have to honor the shareholders vote.
Have you considered that the wealthy wield much more power than kings of old? Except they don’t need armies of soldiers to stay in power, just armies of lawyers and lobbyists.
You can know that things are out of control when a “conservative” columnist calls attention to the inequalities. My favorite “conservative” columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote “College, the Great Unequalizer”, New York Times, 2014-05-03 (http://nyti.ms/1kzuuRQ). He says that the Party Scene at many colleges benefits the well-heeled student and sucks in the “lower-status” student. The well-heeled can rescue those who practice an excess of vices, but the less-well-off can’t. The well-heeled will go on to social or economic success regardless of their performance. Others will rarely join that social class.
And the upper-class is finding many ways to get their way no matter the cost to the rest of society. It is well-known, to those who care, that the Koch Brothers through their American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) are writing our laws in cahoots with Republican legislators. One of the current examples is “right-to-work” laws. Many of the laws are almost identical to what ALEC proposed. “Wisconsin’s law was a virtual copy of the 1995 model bill promoted by” ALEC. See “Scott Walker and the Fate of the Union”, New York Times, Dan Kaufman, 2015-06-12.
The article points out how the upper-class minions don’t care about much more than keeping their masters happy. The accident rate among workers is higher in right-to-work states. Scott Walker promised the president of the state-wide union of heavy machine operators that the “right-to-work bill” would not make it to his desk. Walker got his contribution and the labor guy lost Walker’s commitment.
How the Republican Party has changed! The 1956 Republican Party platform included “The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower administration.”
And it even gets worse. See “Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General”, Eric Lipton, New York Times, 2014-12-06. The attorneys general are sending letters of complaint about air pollution to the Environmental Protection Agency that are almost duplicates of letters written by the lawyers of energy companies. These attorneys general are getting huge campaign contributions from energy companies. Thanks to these contributions, 27 of the states’ attorneys general are Republicans. Who was it that wrote, “We have the best government money can buy”?
Or to blaspheme Abraham Lincoln, “A government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations shall not perish from the earth.” Or should it be “shall destroy the earth”?
Monday, October 29, 2012
Plutocracy and democracy
Someone on a facebook page asked what is plutocracy. I don't remember whether it was about all the money in politics or not. I answered that plutocracy meant rule of the wealthy. We certainly see it with the Koch brothers and Michael Bloomberg. The greatest danger of plutocracy is that it drives out participation by ordinary people, the essence of democracy.
I looked up plutocracy on Wiktionary and found this wonderful quote by G.K. Chesterton:
I looked up plutocracy on Wiktionary and found this wonderful quote by G.K. Chesterton:
"Modernity is not democracy; machinery is not democracy; the surrender of everything to trade and commerce is not democracy. Capitalism is not democracy; and is admittedly, by trend and savour, rather against democracy. Plutocracy by definition is not democracy. But all these modern things forced themselves into the world at about the time, or shortly after the time, when great idealists like Rousseau and Jefferson happened to have been thinking about the democratic ideal of democracy."
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Quote of the day: Fair share from wealthy
"[T]here's no reason to punish the wealthy, just to expect them to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden. And expecting proportional sacrifice from those very well off is not 'punishing success,' as some would have it. It's as simple as expecting the strongest campers to carry the heaviest canoe. It just makes sense." - Comment by Will Rice in the comments to his article "Coming Out of the Money Closet".
This and other blogs by Will Rice can be found at http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/category/categories/will-rice. How does he get all of his money? By going to the mailbox to get his dividend checks from inherited stock. See "The Rich Don't Need a Free Ride".
BTW, we aren't in the one percent, but since we both stopped working, we get all of our money at the mailbox or by direct deposit.
This and other blogs by Will Rice can be found at http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/category/categories/will-rice. How does he get all of his money? By going to the mailbox to get his dividend checks from inherited stock. See "The Rich Don't Need a Free Ride".
BTW, we aren't in the one percent, but since we both stopped working, we get all of our money at the mailbox or by direct deposit.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Quote of the Day: Job Creation
"When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around." "Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators", ice Hanauer, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2011-12-05.
Hanuer writes that he paid "an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income."
Hanuer writes that he paid "an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income."
Sunday, December 04, 2011
High profits are the road to ruin - Adam Smith
The Rev. Bruce Johnson of the Unitarian-Universalist Congregation of Duluth gave a sermon this morning on consumerism - "Consuming Religion". In it, he used "free markets" in the corrupt sense, that is, business is free to do whatever it wants, free of regulation. I knew that Adam Smith used "free market" only once in "Wealth of Nations"; I wondered how often he used "regulation".
Well, I gave up counting, but I noted that he treats regulations as both good and bad. One of the good senses is that regulations prevent abuses. One of the sections that mentioned regulation discussed the three classes involved in the economy - one does nothing and keeps getting richer, the second is necessary to get things started, and the third actually does the work. Here is what he wrote about the second, those who supply the capital (stock in the sense of materials, equipment, and workplaces).
"It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
Well, I gave up counting, but I noted that he treats regulations as both good and bad. One of the good senses is that regulations prevent abuses. One of the sections that mentioned regulation discussed the three classes involved in the economy - one does nothing and keeps getting richer, the second is necessary to get things started, and the third actually does the work. Here is what he wrote about the second, those who supply the capital (stock in the sense of materials, equipment, and workplaces).
"It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
Friday, December 02, 2011
Comment on "job creators"
I posted the following as a comment to the Coffee Party's Facebook posting of "7 Ways to Support the Real Job Creators".
I highly recommend slogging through the 1000+ pages of 18th Century English that are Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".
Would you believe that he is more sympathetic to the workmen than the masters? That he thinks banks should be regulated? That taxes are necessary? That we have to co-operate with and assist one another? That talents come from our experiences? That he doesn't believe in giving 110% to employers? That the rich get rich at the expense of the poor? That governments are needed to enforce contract law? That merchants complain that high wages affect the economy but say nothing of how high profits affect the economy? That honorable professions are underpaid? That regulations are needed to prevent abuse? That he doesn't think much of corporations controlling government? That corporations are not concerned with the public interest? That although he complained it was illegal for workers to unite to raise wages but legal for masters to unite to keep wages down, he didn't think much of labor unions? But that regulations in favor of workers were just but those in favor of the masters were unjust?
Those are only some of the comments with which I annotated the first 150 pages of my Project Gutenberg copy of "Wealth of Nations".
I highly recommend slogging through the 1000+ pages of 18th Century English that are Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".
Would you believe that he is more sympathetic to the workmen than the masters? That he thinks banks should be regulated? That taxes are necessary? That we have to co-operate with and assist one another? That talents come from our experiences? That he doesn't believe in giving 110% to employers? That the rich get rich at the expense of the poor? That governments are needed to enforce contract law? That merchants complain that high wages affect the economy but say nothing of how high profits affect the economy? That honorable professions are underpaid? That regulations are needed to prevent abuse? That he doesn't think much of corporations controlling government? That corporations are not concerned with the public interest? That although he complained it was illegal for workers to unite to raise wages but legal for masters to unite to keep wages down, he didn't think much of labor unions? But that regulations in favor of workers were just but those in favor of the masters were unjust?
Those are only some of the comments with which I annotated the first 150 pages of my Project Gutenberg copy of "Wealth of Nations".
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Fair share or share fairly
Many say "the rich" should pay their "fair share" of taxes, but what really is a "fair share"? I think often the argument is that since the rich have more money, they can afford to pay more taxes, and that they should pay at a higher marginal rate without a lot of gimmicks that allow some to pay even less taxes than some earning less.
I think that this is the wrong approach. What one should add up the "benefits" that the rich get for their taxes.
How often do we consider that those involved in commerce benefit from a good transportation network? Every part of the network is paid for in full or part by taxes. Almost all roads are paid for by taxes, local property taxes, state and federal taxes, and probably some by income taxes. Airports are built and operated partly from landing fees and partly from taxes from all levels.
How often do we consider that those in business depend on a trained work force? Without taxes we would have far fewer schools and a far smaller trained work force. Kids could only go to school if their parents could afford it. We have examples of this imbalance all over the world and even in our own country's past.
How often do we consider that business depends on a court system to settle disputes? Some say we need "tort reform", meaning reduce the ability of individuals to sue corporations. But does anybody consider how much corporations sue each other, sometimes resulting in settlements in billions of dollars.
How often do we consider that business depends on public safety, sanitary systems, and many other aspects of tax-supported infrastructure? Would every business want its own fire department and security department. If they are going to have their own security department, are they going to have their own courts and detention centers to do something with those who harm people or things on company property?
If businesses need all these government services, shouldn't they pay the taxes for them, either directly or through the income of those profiting from the business?
Many argue that "taxing the rich" limits their ability to invest and create jobs. But how many of them are putting money into new ventures or expansion? Or are many of them just moving money around? The answer is both but I would say more of the latter than the former.
For those of you who have what you consider a good amount of savings, how much of it have you put into helping somebody start or expand a business? More than likely you have put it into mutual funds, stocks, and bonds. What happens when you invest. Directly or indirectly you buy stocks and bonds from somebody who already owns them. Does that money go into creating jobs? Probably not, except for the transaction fees pay the salaries and bonuses of those working for mutual funds or brokerages.
The only real benefit of your buying stock and bonds is providing liquidity to the market. This is necessary but it really doesn't really do that much for creating businesses and jobs. Liquidity has many advantages but let us look at only one. You put $1,000 into some investment. It may go up or down, but let's assume not by much in either direction. Now something happens to your car or house that you need about $1,000 to pay for. Assuming you have no other savings, you want to quickly get your $1,000 back. If there was no liquidity, you would have as much chance of getting your $1,000 back as you would have of quickly selling a film camera on eBay.
I could go on with many more "yes, but" considerations about taxing and investment. I do hope that this little bit of text does help you consider almost all the arguments in print and on the blogs are over-simplifications of something that needs more than just taking a position. And taking a position may be a way to invest, but it is not the way to run a country.
I think that this is the wrong approach. What one should add up the "benefits" that the rich get for their taxes.
How often do we consider that those involved in commerce benefit from a good transportation network? Every part of the network is paid for in full or part by taxes. Almost all roads are paid for by taxes, local property taxes, state and federal taxes, and probably some by income taxes. Airports are built and operated partly from landing fees and partly from taxes from all levels.
How often do we consider that those in business depend on a trained work force? Without taxes we would have far fewer schools and a far smaller trained work force. Kids could only go to school if their parents could afford it. We have examples of this imbalance all over the world and even in our own country's past.
How often do we consider that business depends on a court system to settle disputes? Some say we need "tort reform", meaning reduce the ability of individuals to sue corporations. But does anybody consider how much corporations sue each other, sometimes resulting in settlements in billions of dollars.
How often do we consider that business depends on public safety, sanitary systems, and many other aspects of tax-supported infrastructure? Would every business want its own fire department and security department. If they are going to have their own security department, are they going to have their own courts and detention centers to do something with those who harm people or things on company property?
If businesses need all these government services, shouldn't they pay the taxes for them, either directly or through the income of those profiting from the business?
Many argue that "taxing the rich" limits their ability to invest and create jobs. But how many of them are putting money into new ventures or expansion? Or are many of them just moving money around? The answer is both but I would say more of the latter than the former.
For those of you who have what you consider a good amount of savings, how much of it have you put into helping somebody start or expand a business? More than likely you have put it into mutual funds, stocks, and bonds. What happens when you invest. Directly or indirectly you buy stocks and bonds from somebody who already owns them. Does that money go into creating jobs? Probably not, except for the transaction fees pay the salaries and bonuses of those working for mutual funds or brokerages.
The only real benefit of your buying stock and bonds is providing liquidity to the market. This is necessary but it really doesn't really do that much for creating businesses and jobs. Liquidity has many advantages but let us look at only one. You put $1,000 into some investment. It may go up or down, but let's assume not by much in either direction. Now something happens to your car or house that you need about $1,000 to pay for. Assuming you have no other savings, you want to quickly get your $1,000 back. If there was no liquidity, you would have as much chance of getting your $1,000 back as you would have of quickly selling a film camera on eBay.
I could go on with many more "yes, but" considerations about taxing and investment. I do hope that this little bit of text does help you consider almost all the arguments in print and on the blogs are over-simplifications of something that needs more than just taking a position. And taking a position may be a way to invest, but it is not the way to run a country.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Fair share of taxes, just what is it?
Many writers on the left call for the "rich" to pay their "fair share of taxes". A recent example was printed in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, "Obama is right to take on the very rich", written by Chuck Collins and Sam Pizzigati for Common Dreams. An aside, don't be thrown by the forms at the top of the page; the full article is below the form.
So what is this "fair share"? Many define it as people paying the same percentage of their income or even paying a higher percentage for higher income. This latter is called progressive taxation. Others define it as paying for what you use of government services. For example, if you don't have kids in school, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the schools.
This latter is a very narrow-minded approach to government services. It's like saying that you don't drive anywhere, and so you shouldn't pay for roads. However, how are groceries brought to the store; how are packages delivered to your door; how does the ambulance get to your house when you have a heart attack? You'll need roads for each of these, whether you drive or not. And when you have a heart attack, you will need a doctor who most likely began his or her schooling in public schools.
Depending on others being educated is what makes many people rich. Do you think somebody like Bill Gates programmed every piece of software, wrote every piece of advertising, and wrote every piece of documentation? No, he depended on thousands of programmers, marketing people, writers, delivery people, sales people, and floor sweepers. Even the last had to be educated to read directions, cleaning supply labels, and signs in the buildings.
I don't deny that he came up with a clever idea when he wrote Microsoft BASIC, and horrors, according to the ethos of the time, he sold copies of it. He also had many other clever ideas and built a very large team to come up with more clever ideas. He also invested a lot of money into Microsoft. You can argue that he overcharged and engaged in monopolistic practices, but few would argue that he shouldn't have become rich from the effort he started. But he couldn't have done it without a lot of government support in the form of roads, schools, sewers, regulations that ensure a reliable supply of electricity, building inspections for safe workplaces, oversight of securities markets for fair buying and selling of shares in Microsoft, and on and on.
In other words, Bill Gates depended on a predictable, civilized society to create, build, and maintain his enterprise. The more money you have, the more you need a civilized society. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society", Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Somehow, our politicians have bought into the myth that rich became so by their own individual efforts and that government taxation will take funds from further investment. That would be true if government confiscated all, or even nearly all income above a certain level. On the other hand, if government didn't tax at all, there would be no infra-structure to support investment, no educated people do all the work investors need to be done, and even no educated people to use many very sophisticated products that have been produced with investors' money.
This myth has led to more and more tax breaks for those who merely move money around, and less civilized society for those who really make the increase in money possible. Because our government withdrew from many of its responsibilities because of a disdain for government and taxes, even the wealthy have become less wealthy, and many of those who the wealthy depended upon are losing almost all of their own wealth.
For more of my thoughts on taxes, see "Straight talk on taxes" as well as the articles listed in the "Related Articles" sidebar.
So what is this "fair share"? Many define it as people paying the same percentage of their income or even paying a higher percentage for higher income. This latter is called progressive taxation. Others define it as paying for what you use of government services. For example, if you don't have kids in school, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the schools.
This latter is a very narrow-minded approach to government services. It's like saying that you don't drive anywhere, and so you shouldn't pay for roads. However, how are groceries brought to the store; how are packages delivered to your door; how does the ambulance get to your house when you have a heart attack? You'll need roads for each of these, whether you drive or not. And when you have a heart attack, you will need a doctor who most likely began his or her schooling in public schools.
Depending on others being educated is what makes many people rich. Do you think somebody like Bill Gates programmed every piece of software, wrote every piece of advertising, and wrote every piece of documentation? No, he depended on thousands of programmers, marketing people, writers, delivery people, sales people, and floor sweepers. Even the last had to be educated to read directions, cleaning supply labels, and signs in the buildings.
I don't deny that he came up with a clever idea when he wrote Microsoft BASIC, and horrors, according to the ethos of the time, he sold copies of it. He also had many other clever ideas and built a very large team to come up with more clever ideas. He also invested a lot of money into Microsoft. You can argue that he overcharged and engaged in monopolistic practices, but few would argue that he shouldn't have become rich from the effort he started. But he couldn't have done it without a lot of government support in the form of roads, schools, sewers, regulations that ensure a reliable supply of electricity, building inspections for safe workplaces, oversight of securities markets for fair buying and selling of shares in Microsoft, and on and on.
In other words, Bill Gates depended on a predictable, civilized society to create, build, and maintain his enterprise. The more money you have, the more you need a civilized society. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society", Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Somehow, our politicians have bought into the myth that rich became so by their own individual efforts and that government taxation will take funds from further investment. That would be true if government confiscated all, or even nearly all income above a certain level. On the other hand, if government didn't tax at all, there would be no infra-structure to support investment, no educated people do all the work investors need to be done, and even no educated people to use many very sophisticated products that have been produced with investors' money.
This myth has led to more and more tax breaks for those who merely move money around, and less civilized society for those who really make the increase in money possible. Because our government withdrew from many of its responsibilities because of a disdain for government and taxes, even the wealthy have become less wealthy, and many of those who the wealthy depended upon are losing almost all of their own wealth.
For more of my thoughts on taxes, see "Straight talk on taxes" as well as the articles listed in the "Related Articles" sidebar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)