I recently found this article from The New Yorker:
I'm mostly posting in hopes to get a response out of Duane. Duane was engaged in quite the conversation with Dave and I the night Dan flew in to see Melanie. I can only hope to revive such an debate as the one that died that night. I might be curious to see what my other, more "moderate" Blatters take from this article.
hahaha "moderate Blatters" hahahaha
ReplyDeleteFascinating article, Russ. After reading it, I realize that this has been my position all along. I know that, during many a conversation, I have criticized tax hikes on the wealthy, and we have long been at odds on the issue. But I realize now was that we didn't understand what the term 'wealthy' really meant. As the author points out, there is a yawning chasm between the 'pretty rich' and the 'ultra rich' these days - one that deserves more attention than it gets.
ReplyDeleteMy criticism of tax hikes for those making $150,000 a year and up is that this group (those who make several hundred thousand dollars a year) is responsible for starting small businesses, developing cool new ideas, innovative technologies, and - in the process - creating lots of new jobs. What's more, they represent the principle that anyone willing to work hard and invest a great deal in their future can make a good living for themselves in this country.
None of this applies to the ultra rich (those making millions of dollars a year). They don't necessarily create new jobs (Walmart actually destroys at least as many jobs as it creates, by crushing local businesses), they aren't smart enough to innovate (all they know how to do is take money and make more, whatever the cost), and there is no guarantee that, if you work hard enough, you'll pull down $50,000,000 a year.
And the worst of it is that, once you have a huge fortune, it's pitifully easy to make tons of money. In this recent economic downturn, some of the wealthy heads of the financial firms that built the cesspool we're all standing in may have lost their jobs but they didn't lose the fortunes they made in the bubble years leading up to the meltdown. They're doing really well for themselves, while the rest of America suffers.
Finally, I want to reiterate that the 'pretty wealthy' actually do make a difference with their money. Taking my dad's silence as evidence that he's too shy to comment, I'll use him as an example. Over the past quarter century of long study, hard work, long hours and night-time call, he has earned a fair amount of money - most of which he saved. Then, ten years ago, he began to invest it in developing a device that will reduce health care costs - not to mention pain and suffering - for diabetics who undergo dialysis. I don't know the exact figures, but he invested a great deal of is own money (which he might have spent on sports cars, exotic vacations and fine French wines), built a company which employs dozens of people, and created a device that will affect the lives of tens of millions of Americans in the years to come. Had tax rates been substantially higher over the 25 years he was saving his money, he might have decided the enormous effort of starting a company was too costly and risky and spent it on his personal pleasure (and that of his family) instead.
In short, I agree fully with the author of Russ' article: there aught to be many tax brackets above $125,000, and those who are very, very rich should pay higher taxes - because they are getting richer every year, and because they aren't an essential part of what keeps America great.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI worked for a family which I'm pretty sure between the two of them are in a tax bracket way above $125,000. They have three residences: a home in the nicest part of town, a lakeside house "up north," and the husand's hotel room when he weekly travels for work. They also employ 3-4 people at all times in order that they might enjoy quality time with their children when they are together. All this to the sacrifice of meaningful contributions to their communities. The husband sacrifices his time to travel for work so that his family can live in the city where the wife works. The wife certainly sacrifices her time and attention working regular hours and on-call as a pulmonary pediatrician. The husband runs a scholarship fund for young women in the midwest to attend universities. I really respect this family as I worked for them. They use their privilege generously to the benefit of their community. I know that they don't do this for the tax incentive, but I'm sure they also feel a sense of responsibility. Yet, the class difference did not go unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteEither choose to give back or have the government do it for you. I don't see much of a difference between rich and ultra rich. I live with a "rich" family in the Marshall Islands. I'm pretty sure they would be lower middle class in the United States. They still have more to give back to their community. "Rich" is a relative word. I certainly support interpretive tax breaks for that "not ultra" rich income bracket.