It’s time for American Democracy to take the next step, and the next step is away from wealth for wealth’s sake and towards rewarding people with motivation and old-fashioned determination to succeed. Collectively we have the money to make this step.
What I object to is the hierarchy of money and that the descendants of rich people will never have to do anything meaningful or any hard work their entire lives.
Google up the number of billionaires and multi-billionaires in the US and in the world, and you will discover what many people already know. We have a wealth bubble of gigantic proportions.
Some rich men have already realized the truth of my words, men like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Mr. Buffett doesn’t plan to leave most of his wealth to his children. The Washington Post reported in 2014 that each of his children will inherit $2 billion. In Buffett’s opinion, this is “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”
Bravo!
Still Bill Gates and Warren Buffett live in entirely different worlds than you or I. For instance, given the chance, I’m sure I could manage to float through an entire lifetime doing pretty much nothing with $2 billion dollars.
I do not envy rich people their money. They have nicer houses and better toys, but that’s fine with me. What does bother me is that rich people hoard and store their money in offshore tax havens and gigantic trust funds that keep all that money “buried” so that it will never again see the light of day. The flaw in trickle down economics is that it doesn’t.
Before you accuse me of being a Redistributionist of wealth, that is not what I am suggesting. I am not saying that we should take from the rich and give to the poor. There’s no such thing as “leveling the playing field”, and that idea completely goes against the grain of American Democracy.
If you have earned a bundle, then you should, by all means, enjoy your money and spend it as you please. Buy ten mansions and six yachts. Give your children and your grandchildren each a yacht. I’m fine with that; but when you die, let’s put the excess money to good use.
What I am suggesting is funding a meritocracy by funding a system of free education.
Proposed: a society based on merit and achievement. Not one based on inheritance and privilege, nor on intelligence judged by test scores, but on the drive to succeed in the real world. Let’s reward the best of us, instead of instituting a societal caste system of privilege and birth right.
The profits of our labors should be used to fund education, education in the broadest sense of the word, education for those who seek to be educated in the trades, engineering, medicine, and all of science for the benefit of us all.
Dear Win, Lose or Draw:
As a follower of Jesus Christ I believe in both faith and good works while on earth. Religious faith, especially the Christian church are responsible for acts of charity and good works throughout human history than any other human institution. Your use of the examples of Buffet and Gates argue against your theory not for it. Your theory is not calling for a reasonable level of taxation but a radical confiscation of other peoples money. Your plan would result in a major disincentive to the original creation of wealth. People don’t work hard and sacrifice time and effort only to amass wealth for their present existence. Most people have children or long term charities that they plan to leave their wealth to.
It’s their money let them decide who should receive it at their death. If you take a look at America’s over all charitable giving you will find it exceeds any other country and the majority comes from religious people (mostly Christians). If you study charitable giving in America you will also see that those areas of the country which give the most charity are the so-called Red States. People in New England give the least amount of charity. It is a proven fact that secularism results in less charitable giving. These are facts which are sited in my book “America’s Coming Dark Age”. Take a look when it is published. William D. Howard
William, you said, “Your use of the examples of Buffet and Gates argue against your theory not for it. Your theory is not calling for a reasonable level of taxation but a radical confiscation of other people’s money. Your plan would result in a major disincentive to the original creation of wealth.”
You may be reading too much into my words. As with any such initiative, the rough idea would have to be debated and modified. It would not, and could not, be enacted in its entirety.
You have used the word “confiscation” which is a loaded description. How we are taxed and how much we are taxed is modified all the time. A new death tax on the super-rich would not have to be a “confiscation” or “stealing” as you continue to insist. It would not, as you say, be “a major disincentive” to wealth creation. It could be and certainly would be more modest, but it still might be enough to do some good.
Dear Win, Lose or Draw:
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions .”
It would be wonderful if people who have wealth were good and wise and only gave their money to other people who were good and wise. In the real world unless we do away with personal responsibility and economic freedom the government can’t protect society from the free choices of free people. The attempts by governments to create utopia have always ended badly.
William: You and many others have said, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” For me the phrase brings to mind an old question. Is the path to heaven to be best found through faith or through good works here on earth. I haven’t done a lot of good so far, but I believe more in the latter than the former.
You are correct that all attempts at creating utopia have ended badly. So let’s not do that. Let’s just take a step or two in the right direction by doing something to help and encourage hard work and the determination to succeed for the benefit of us all.
Government should never pick winners and losers in society, but it could direct some of our financial resources towards higher education. I believe Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet are pointing out one way that might be accomplished.
Dear Win, Lose or Draw: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions “. Yes it would be a better world if people were good and wise and spent their wealth on good and wise endeavors. In the real world where freedom exists we can’t protect society in advance of them making bad decisions. It is wrong and would be counter-productive for government to steal someone’s wealth at the beginning or at the end of their lives. Economic freedom requires allowing people the freedom to make bad choices and leave their wealth to unworthy off-spring. William D. Howard
William: You said, “It is wrong and would be counter-productive for government to steal someone’s wealth at the beginning or at the end of their lives.”
Government taxes us in many ways and uses those funds for many things, some very much less than desirable. I prefer to avoid calling that “stealing”.
My suggestion does not involve taking any money from the living. That would be wrong!!!
But Have you heard? You can’t take it with you!
Bill Gates’ “father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way of America. Gates’s maternal grandfather was J. W. Maxwell, a national bank president. (Wikipedia).” He grew up in the upper middle class and his parents gave him $250,000 to start Microsoft. Far more valuable than the money, he inherited great genes and a culture of superior service.
Gates employs 181,000 people directly. 30% of the world’s computer operating systems are Microsoft. He gives away billions. Like the vast majority of those who get rich in the private property market economy, the value that he provides to many others greatly exceeds his net worth. He earned it.
Private property markets reward, in your words, “people with motivation and old-fashioned determination to succeed” to produce goods and services while the alternative produces dictatorship. “Merit and achievement,” and “reward the best of us,” are judged by customers when they freely choose to buy, not by bureaucrats or bloggers.
Warren Buffet grew up middle-middle class. He is a Super Teacher as his examples, articles, and books have improved the financial business sector which benefits more than half of US households with investments (Pew Research), and the 81% of current retirees with a pension (planadviser.com). He, like most of the rich, gives much to charity.
In “7 Myths About Millionaires,” (Tom Sightings, US News and World Report, Nov. 29, 2018), “A 2017 survey from Fidelity Investments found that 88 percent of millionaires are self-made. Only 12 percent inherited significant money (at least 10 percent of their wealth), and most did not grow up in exclusive country club neighborhoods. The majority of millionaires went to college and are married or partnered.” These estimates are consistent with those reported over the past several decades.
6.7% of US citizens are millionaires (Kiplinger.com). Since 12% of them inherited significant wealth, then only 0.80% of our population is in the class you have targeted. People who inherit wealth spend it and when they do, many are employed. Enter the beauty that is Biltmore in Asheville, North Carolina.
If you really are worried about people who, “will never have to do anything meaningful or any hard work their entire lives,” imagine what will happen when “progressives” enact a Universal Basic Income scheme. Already in the US, 60% of households get more in government benefits than they pay in taxes (Tax Foundation study). As an old escapee from communism told me, we will be “sitting on our collectivist asses.”
Money that “we” “have” “collectively” is not ours, it belongs to those who earned it. We don’t have it unless we earn it or steal it. Savings are not “buried.” Banks and investment funds loan to businesses and consumers.
There is no such thing as free education. Taxpayer-funded K-12 plus subsidized state universities, colleges, and training add up to $1.4 trillion annually (usgovernmentspending.com). Divide that by the 128 million households equals $11,000 per household every year.
In our current system, as the rich get richer, the relatively poor get better jobs and improved goods and services. Government gets more too—the federal government again took in record revenue in real terms adjusted for inflation, a direct result of the 2017 Republican cut in the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. This is also the most significant federal policy that facilitates low unemployment. 0% would do more; see Fairtax.org for details.
You are mostly free to do what you want with the fruits of your own labors. Don’t should on others.
Richard:
You said, “imagine what will happen when “progressives” enact a Universal Basic Income scheme.”
I am against it!
My scheme, I repeat, is to reward motivated people who want to succeed by funding higher education for those who seek it.