Eat the Rich
It has become common in Western Civilization's culture to mistrust, badmouth and loath the wealthy. There are always cries of them not paying their "fair share" when it comes to taxes, or even the all too common refrain that they use their wealth to buy influence with power brokers, thereby protecting their estates from the clutches of government. However, it is important to note that this line of thinking is dangerous to the future prosperity of Western Civilization. "Why," you ask? Simply put, everyone of us wishes to be rich. Each and everyone of us strive to become financially and economically free. So, if the majority of the middle class continues to bemoan the rich, it will only become a matter of time before any opportunity for the middle class to become rich disappears.
For starters, when the rich offer monetary support to the campaigns of politicians, the middle class on both ends of the political spectrum benefit. When rich conservatives give to political conservatives, would it not stand to reason that all conservatives benefit regardless of income or wealth? And visa versa with the left. Stephen Pollard, writing for The Sunday Times(U.K.), has a piece titled "Our mistrust of the rich is absurd" and in it he makes the case that in the U.K. there is a subtle push to make it illegal for the rich to donate, consort or otherwise be aquaintences with politicians. He begins his piece with this, "I have no idea what happened when Lord Levy raised funds for the Labour Party. I don’t know what he said to would-be donors. I don’t know what, if anything, he offered them. I don’t know what, if anything, they demanded in return. Nor do you. Nor do the police. Nor does anyone, except Lord Levy and the people to whom he spoke. But that hasn’t stopped almost everyone from assuming that something fishy has been going on." The two key points to his opening is that the police investigated Levy's political campaign contributions and that "almost everyone" believes that this means something untoward was done or has been done. First, as a result of the police investigation, and subsequently the release of the report to the Crown Prosecution Service, no legal action has been made against Lord Levy. Second, the gears of the justice system in this case seem to be turning, not at the behest of the law, but at the command of public opinion brought forth by a festering distain for the wealthy.
Here in the United States, we have our own problems with the rich--well, I don't, but the "people" appear to. We have laws designed to quash any attempt to "influence" politicians with large sums of money--yet the money seems to continue to flow and at greater rates than before. We even have a major political party dedicated to the quest of ending the persuit of wealth. Of course the rhetoric is disguised as helping the poor, or reversing the concentration of wealth or even, as Democrat Presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton likes to put it, "shared prosperity." But make no mistake, there is no attempt here to do any of the things supposedly desired. You see the politicians making these arguments are already pretty well-to-do and don't really need to have an income. Let's take a look at some of the biggest Democrat backers and what they think about income taxes.
1) Warren Buffet: According to Wikipedia, Mr. Buffet has an income of roughly $100,000 yet his net worth is $52 billion(US). Mr. Buffet is a big proponent of raising the income tax rates from where they are today. He even claims that his secretary is paying more in income taxes than he is. (For what it's worht, I believe his secretary works and resides in New York city, so he may also be calculating her state income taxes as well.) Here's the nut of the story though, Mr. Buffet can reasonably afford to pay the higher tax rates because he already has accrued $52 billion in wealth. As long as there is no tax on wealth, Mr. Buffet will be a huge fan of the income tax.
2) Bill and Hillary Clinton: According to The New York Times they are both worth between $10 and $50 million. Like Mr. Buffet, both are bigger fans of the income tax than Hillary is a fan for the Yankees. Former President Clinton implemented one of the highest tax increases in the nation's history, while possible President Clinton has promised to allow the tax cuts of President Bush to expire, as they are sunsetted and will go back to her husband's rates in 2010. She laments that today we have a government "of the few" and suggests that we begin to "replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." She also prefers a "we're in it together" society, meaning she is all for socialism, more so than ever now that she has emassed her own wealth.
3) John "The Breck Girl" Edwards: We have all heard of his $400 haircuts and his large mansion in North Carolina, but what is John Edwards's net worth? Well, USAToday has it at somewhere between $12.8 to $60 million. What is Edwards's message on the Presidential campaign trail? Basically, President Bush gave a big break to his rich friends in the form of tax cuts. Typical Democrat drivel when it comes to tax policy. Mr. Edwards has opened up a poverty research facility at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He has recently kicked off a tour of the country to personally get to know those who have been struck by poverty. All the while,his policies will do nothing to alleviate the plight of the poor and he gets $400 haircuts. Edwards, like all the rest of the Left, has wealth and therefore his income is not that important to him. This makes him a huge fan of the income tax.
So, how do politicians with large sums of wealth of their own get away with badmouthing the rich? Well, to put it quite simply, the "people." That's right, Democrats, socialists and border line Marxists would not have a leg to stand on in this country if the "people" were not so quick to hold a low opinion of the wealthy. It boils down to class envy. The rich are hated, not because they stole what they have--the common sentiment felt by most of the middle class--but because the "people" don't have what they have. You don't believe me? You think the "people" are happy in their financial state? Then tell me why lotteries across the country are so popular? How is Los Vegas still thriving? Why do you get up and go to college and then to work? Because we all want to be rich, and while we persue that goal we will do whatever we can to tear down those who have beaten us to the punch. Class envy works for politicians because the "people" are, quite frankly, economically stupid. The only people that class envy, and the politicians that rise to power because of it, hurts are the ones who are envious.
Sources: If you haven't read any of these, I strongly recommend that you do so.
1) The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2112747.ece
2) The New York Sun and Hillary: http://www.nysun.com/article/55425
3) Warren Buffet's wealth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
4) The New York Times and the Clintons: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/15clintons.html?ex=1185163200&en=17f99ab0213a91f5&ei=5070
5) John "The Breck Girl" Edwards: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070314/1a_cover14.art.htm
For starters, when the rich offer monetary support to the campaigns of politicians, the middle class on both ends of the political spectrum benefit. When rich conservatives give to political conservatives, would it not stand to reason that all conservatives benefit regardless of income or wealth? And visa versa with the left. Stephen Pollard, writing for The Sunday Times(U.K.), has a piece titled "Our mistrust of the rich is absurd" and in it he makes the case that in the U.K. there is a subtle push to make it illegal for the rich to donate, consort or otherwise be aquaintences with politicians. He begins his piece with this, "I have no idea what happened when Lord Levy raised funds for the Labour Party. I don’t know what he said to would-be donors. I don’t know what, if anything, he offered them. I don’t know what, if anything, they demanded in return. Nor do you. Nor do the police. Nor does anyone, except Lord Levy and the people to whom he spoke. But that hasn’t stopped almost everyone from assuming that something fishy has been going on." The two key points to his opening is that the police investigated Levy's political campaign contributions and that "almost everyone" believes that this means something untoward was done or has been done. First, as a result of the police investigation, and subsequently the release of the report to the Crown Prosecution Service, no legal action has been made against Lord Levy. Second, the gears of the justice system in this case seem to be turning, not at the behest of the law, but at the command of public opinion brought forth by a festering distain for the wealthy.
Here in the United States, we have our own problems with the rich--well, I don't, but the "people" appear to. We have laws designed to quash any attempt to "influence" politicians with large sums of money--yet the money seems to continue to flow and at greater rates than before. We even have a major political party dedicated to the quest of ending the persuit of wealth. Of course the rhetoric is disguised as helping the poor, or reversing the concentration of wealth or even, as Democrat Presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton likes to put it, "shared prosperity." But make no mistake, there is no attempt here to do any of the things supposedly desired. You see the politicians making these arguments are already pretty well-to-do and don't really need to have an income. Let's take a look at some of the biggest Democrat backers and what they think about income taxes.
1) Warren Buffet: According to Wikipedia, Mr. Buffet has an income of roughly $100,000 yet his net worth is $52 billion(US). Mr. Buffet is a big proponent of raising the income tax rates from where they are today. He even claims that his secretary is paying more in income taxes than he is. (For what it's worht, I believe his secretary works and resides in New York city, so he may also be calculating her state income taxes as well.) Here's the nut of the story though, Mr. Buffet can reasonably afford to pay the higher tax rates because he already has accrued $52 billion in wealth. As long as there is no tax on wealth, Mr. Buffet will be a huge fan of the income tax.
2) Bill and Hillary Clinton: According to The New York Times they are both worth between $10 and $50 million. Like Mr. Buffet, both are bigger fans of the income tax than Hillary is a fan for the Yankees. Former President Clinton implemented one of the highest tax increases in the nation's history, while possible President Clinton has promised to allow the tax cuts of President Bush to expire, as they are sunsetted and will go back to her husband's rates in 2010. She laments that today we have a government "of the few" and suggests that we begin to "replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." She also prefers a "we're in it together" society, meaning she is all for socialism, more so than ever now that she has emassed her own wealth.
3) John "The Breck Girl" Edwards: We have all heard of his $400 haircuts and his large mansion in North Carolina, but what is John Edwards's net worth? Well, USAToday has it at somewhere between $12.8 to $60 million. What is Edwards's message on the Presidential campaign trail? Basically, President Bush gave a big break to his rich friends in the form of tax cuts. Typical Democrat drivel when it comes to tax policy. Mr. Edwards has opened up a poverty research facility at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He has recently kicked off a tour of the country to personally get to know those who have been struck by poverty. All the while,his policies will do nothing to alleviate the plight of the poor and he gets $400 haircuts. Edwards, like all the rest of the Left, has wealth and therefore his income is not that important to him. This makes him a huge fan of the income tax.
So, how do politicians with large sums of wealth of their own get away with badmouthing the rich? Well, to put it quite simply, the "people." That's right, Democrats, socialists and border line Marxists would not have a leg to stand on in this country if the "people" were not so quick to hold a low opinion of the wealthy. It boils down to class envy. The rich are hated, not because they stole what they have--the common sentiment felt by most of the middle class--but because the "people" don't have what they have. You don't believe me? You think the "people" are happy in their financial state? Then tell me why lotteries across the country are so popular? How is Los Vegas still thriving? Why do you get up and go to college and then to work? Because we all want to be rich, and while we persue that goal we will do whatever we can to tear down those who have beaten us to the punch. Class envy works for politicians because the "people" are, quite frankly, economically stupid. The only people that class envy, and the politicians that rise to power because of it, hurts are the ones who are envious.
Sources: If you haven't read any of these, I strongly recommend that you do so.
1) The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2112747.ece
2) The New York Sun and Hillary: http://www.nysun.com/article/55425
3) Warren Buffet's wealth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
4) The New York Times and the Clintons: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/15clintons.html?ex=1185163200&en=17f99ab0213a91f5&ei=5070
5) John "The Breck Girl" Edwards: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070314/1a_cover14.art.htm
posted by Robert A. McReynolds | 1:12 PM
5 Comments:
Interesting, but you miss and gloss over several important points -
Not everyone (or even most people) wants to be millionaires - look up "sufficing" in any economics text. The gist of it is that "I just want to have enough (money and expectations of future income) to be able to be secure and pursue the activities that I prefer.” There are people that DO pursue money for its own sake, but beyond a certain point, it only becomes a way of "keeping score" in a game of acquisition.
Second is that there is disdain and suspicion for the wealthy, but there are also those suspicious of the poor, the different (religion, skin color), in short any division that you can find between two peoples.
Third is that (in so much as wealth translates to power) the suspicion is well founded. All people "use the system" that they can control to get things to work in their favor (basic economics) but the wealthy - people, companies, politicians of all stripes - can and do distort the entire country to get things to work in their favor. Thus, the drug companies try to change patent law so that they can hold on to exclusive production for a longer time with higher prices for users. Disney is very good at forcing changes in copyright law to protect their mouse, with the result that almost no copyrights expire any more. The oil companies distort/block changes that would make the country less oil dependant. The examples are endless in that arena and we haven't even gotten to "earmarks".
So. No, the middle class does not benefit when the rich offer money to buy politicians. When the rich buy politicians (fund their campaigns) they do it with the expectation that the politician will, in turn, favor legislation that will help that rich contributor. And if that help is to the determent of all others, well, too bad.
Much like the justice system - it's up to the police to do the work of protecting us on the street, just as it's up to the politicians and their wealthy patrons to take care of the meta-system of government. But just as the jury is there to keep a jaundiced eye on the police, it is up to society (and the press) to keep a distrusting, even suspicious eye on the politicians and their patrons.
To sum it up – power still corrupts, Robert. They may not all be crooks, but it’s a good working assumption. It’s just that the ones on the right are more sanctimonious.
Anonymous,
Let's start at the end shall we? Power does not corrupt any more than any other inanimate object does. A person who is corrupt while having power, is just as corrupt without. By your belief in the ability of power--regardless of its origins--to corrupt must mean that you are an anarchist for you cannot, on the one hand, hold that saying to be true and on the other participate in a democratic society by voting.
Second, the self interests of the rich do have an indirect benefit for the poor/middle classes. Explain how the wealthiest attain and retain their wealth if there is not an underclass striving to better themselves monetarily. The material wants of the underclasses directly affect the monetary situation of the upperclass. The upperclass runs or invests in the businesses that produce the very goods that the underclasses purchase.
Third, the upperclass would not have to interact with politicians if the government did not intervene in the private sector in the manner in which it does. Should the government provide some measure of protection from "bad business" for the consumer? Sure. But that protection should be extremely targeted toward those who are blatently bad. It's one thing to regulate a pharmacuetical company that wants to claim that arsnic is a cure all, it's quite another to make a pharmacuetical company to navigate through redtape in trying to release a real cure for a disease. (And your patent example does not hold water seems how there are numerous generic drugs on the market for numerous serious ailments.)
Lastly, you are correct when you say that "not everyone wants to be millionaires." But you are wrong to assume that that means they do not want to be financially free. I find it very unlikely that the poor like being poor, for if they did, then why do they clamour for government subsidies. The disdain for the wealthy is not the same as the disdain for the poor--at least as I see it. Like I said, the wealthy are viewed as criminals who did not earn their wealth. The poor are just uneducated and they are used by politicians who weild true power. You don't think so? Well answer this: Which of the two--government or the rich--can arbitrarily confiscate your property? The rich, i.e. bankers, can only default on loans up to the reimbursment of the monetary amount. Governments can take it all for whatever trumpt up reason they can think of.
Some interesting comments, Robert.
“Power” is no more an “inanimate object” than life is. It would be called more a “property” or an attribute of other things. If someone hands you an M-16, the gun has power in the minds of the people that see it. When it is in your hands, you take on some of the power of the gun. But the gun itself has no power – it’s just a few pounds of metal and plastic - it might not even have a live round in it. Power is attributed to it by the people around it
.
Perhaps you could argue that a person who is corrupt while having power is just as corrupt without. I would argue the point a little differently. You seem a religious man from some of your other posts – so use the biblical concept - man is inherently imperfect. To expect him to be otherwise is foolish.
The concept of the corrosiveness of power is ancient. Even recent psychological work points to the phenomenal corrosiveness of power. Some years ago (the 60s, or maybe early 70s) some researchers did an experiment where random students were assigned to be either “prisoners” or “guards” in a “jail” they set up. Time after time, the guards quickly became brutal with the prisoners – several times to the point where the experiment had to be stopped. And these were just random college kids. What could you expect of people that seek the position?
“.. must mean that you are an anarchist..” I take it this is an attempt at Limbaughian debate by epithet? It’s wasted on me.
Since you call your blog the Whig, I’m assuming you have some knowledge of history. From the Roman Senate, through the Magna Carta, through the American Constitution the concepts of voting, democracy and specifically delineated powers of the people and institutions of government come from the abuse of power by the kings and the resulting decision of the populace to put an end to that power. If kings could be found that would not be corruptible, would be fair and just to the population, there would be no need for democracy at all.
To put it another way, the prudent man sees a need for many activities that can only be performed by an overarching body. This might be police protection, roads, dealing with other countries, etc. So he chooses to put people in charge of these things. But he knows that this power is prone to corruption and so he keeps an eye on the people that he has granted this power to. He does not walk away and just figure everything will be fine.
I did not say, nor was it my intent to say that people should not be allowed to accumulate wealth or that the wealthy should be denied their rewards. Yes, the less wealthy benefit from the wealthy and vice versa. That was not the point. The point was that the wealthy can and do use their wealth/power to distort the playing field. That needs to be monitored and controlled.
… government in the private sector. The government is in the private sector because people and the private sector want them there. The dance is far more complex that “just stay out of the way”. The drug companies couldn’t work without patent law – that’s getting involved in the private sector. But then the private sector gets involved by trying to change the patent law to give them a stronger advantage over other companies. They (the drug company’s lobbyists) are doing their job to try to make the company more profitable. And you lose if they succeed. It falls to government to make/find the balance between the needs of the people and the needs of the companies. But.. wait, what if the drug companies paid for the government’s election….? You don’t think the government would be beholding to them, do you?
Yes there are lots of generic drugs. But that doesn’t mean that the drug companies wouldn’t like to do away with them if they could. Here’s an article on the drug companies efforts to change patent law and it only took 30 seconds to find. You can find plenty more. http://www.reason.com/news/show/34901.html
I did not say that people didn’t want to be financially free. In fact I stated it. Used those specific words.
Who can arbitrarily confiscate my property? Why all of them, of course. The government for their own purposes. The government does it at the behest of the private sector, now - Atlantic City, wasn’t it? That’s where the government condemned some property so a condo developer could build on it. The private sector has a slightly different flavor – Enron and the California natural gas contract where they got the state by the short hairs and then manipulated deliveries to drive the price of gas out of sight tripling people’s electric bills there one summer. The drug companies try and get as much as they can with exorbitant prices and then trying to manipulate the patent law so they can charge longer. One of my personal favorites is the credit card companies – the way some write the terms of the cards where, if you are late on one bill – say your electric bill – they can and do declare you in default on the credit card and triple the interest rate. Very clever. The list is endless, but I’ll stop here.
No, Robert – the wealthy, government, big (or small) business, none of them are trying to do you any favors. None of them are doing “what’s right” for you or for anyone else except themselves. Your duty as a citizen is to keep a watchful eye on them all. But that’s the way democracy and a “free” economy work.
Anonymous,
You pose a very good argument and write very well without some of the vitriol and stupidity that I have seen on this blog before. I would like to ask you to become a contributor. You can log on and post on any topic you like, when ever you like not as "anonymous" but as a fellow editor of the National Whig. If you are interested just email me.
mcreynolds_robert@hotmail.com
I can give you the access info.
Cheers,
Robert
Thanks for your offer, Robert. I consider it an honor to be asked. Unfortunately, I normally have very little time for additional activities.
(grin) Besides, this was a fairly simple topic where I just noticed an inconsistancy in your views. You might change your mind when we get to some of the ones where we actually have a different perspective...
I saw a couple of others on your blog I'd like to debate with you if I can. Then we'll see if you still feel that you would like my contribution.
Albert
Post a Comment
<< Home