I posted yesterday about the horrible unfairness of life (i.e., I’m not rich). Interestingly, there are a number of rich left-wingers that feel guilty about having a lot of money. In a burst of genius, I came up with an idea that will kill two birds with one stone. They should give their money to me.
Unfortunately, I doubt this idea will work. Rich statists with neurotic disorders tend to deal with their feelings of guilt by supporting higher taxes on other people. I’ve actually debated these crazies (see here, here, and here).
Now more of these odd people are crawling out of the woodwork. Here’s an excerpt from a Yahoo story.
Add PIMCO founder Bill Gross to the list of wealthy Americans who think they aren’t being taxed enough, already. “Of course we should” pay higher taxes, Gross says. …In addition to tax hikes on the wealthy, “let’s raise corporate taxes too,” the famed bond fund manager says, a view that runs in direct opposition to the current discussions in Washington. “Corporations complain and complain and complain and have got the Obama administration suggesting there should be some corporate tax reform,” Gross notes. But at just 1% of GDP, corporate taxes are “historically low.”
To be sure, perhaps the PIMCO guy is just trying to boost his net worth through the back door. His bond fund probably has lots of government debt, so perhaps he thinks higher taxes will protect the value of those bonds. A strange theory, but being a statist means never having to understand how the real world works.
Then we have Stephen King, who apparently feels guilty about his wealth, so he wants the government to rape and pillage other people. And I’m not aware of any back-door rationale for him to support higher taxes, so this presumably is a classic case of GRLWND (guilt-ridden left-wing neurotic disorder). Here are some of the details from an editorial in a Florida paper.
The horror novelist, a part-time Florida resident, addressed a “Wake the State” rally Tuesday in Sarasota, took a swipe or two at Gov. Rick Scott and complained that rich people — like himself — are getting off too easy. “As a rich person,” he said, “I pay 28 percent taxes. What I want to ask you is, why am I not paying 50? Why is everybody in my bracket not paying 50?”
Of course, there’s nothing to stop Mr. King or Mr. Gross from pissing away their money by voluntarily sending checks to Washington. Indeed, the Daily Caller is offering free psychiatric advice to guilt-ridden left wingers by directing them to the Treasury Department website with the information about making gifts to Uncle Sam.
[…] For what it’s worth, if they feel guilty having so much money, they should send some to me. […]
[…] a few already-rich people say such silly things that I wonder whether a big bank account somehow can lead to a loss of common […]
[…] inicial es decirle a este tipo de personas que escriban un gran cheque al IRS (o, mejor aún, que me envíen el dinero como una forma personal de redistribución a los menos afortunados). Después de todo, si […]
[…] to tell this kind of person to go ahead and write a big check to the IRS (or, better yet, send the money to me as a personal form of redistribution to the less fortunate). After all, if he really thinks he […]
[…] to tell this kind of person to go ahead and write a big check to the IRS (or, better yet, send the money to me as a personal form of redistribution to the less fortunate). After all, if he really thinks he […]
[…] to tell this kind of person to go ahead and write a big check to the IRS (or, better yet, send the money to me as a personal form of redistribution to the less fortunate). After all, if he really thinks he […]
[…] is to tell this kind of person to go ahead and write a big check to the IRS (or, better yet, send the money to me as a personal form of redistribution to the less fortunate). After all, if he really thinks he […]
[…] written before about how some leftists have a masochistic desire to pay higher […]
[…] written before about how some leftists have a masochistic desire to pay higher […]
[…] My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past. […]
[…] My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past. […]
[…] My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past. […]
[…] My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past. […]
[…] My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past. […]
[…] My first instinct is to send Buffett the website where people can voluntarily pay extra money to the federal government. I’ve made this suggestion to guilt-ridden rich people in the past. […]
Aside from the general issues above, from a practical perspective,
For a rich person, to advertize that with success comes an obligation to serve, is a rational decision at the personal level.
It is highly unlikely that the tax no-tax debate is in such precarious equilibrium that the advertized opinion of a single rich person will affect public policy. However at the personal level, a “Tax Me Along With Any Exceptional Person Out There” statement earns one a lot of majoritarian public sympathy in the typical prevailing political environment.
Therefore, at the personal level, such totalitarian posturing is rational.
And this exactly the vicious cycle to serfdom:
As collectivist economic central planning increases, wealth not only decreases (due to lower economic efficiency) but the wealth that is left also becomes increasingly dependent on having political connections which enable more preferential and often exclusive advantage to being on the favorable side of regulation and other forms of central planning. Wealth becomes less meritocratic, voters see that, resent it, and in their urge to punish the rich moochers, they also, suicide by punishing all exceptionalism at the polls.
Not surprisingly, in such an environment, some of the rich themselves, feeling that wealth has indeed become less meritocratic, start feeling guilty to the point that they begin to publicly advertise their guilt.
The mid-long term end result of this general process, is less aggregate overall opportunities for all. Try moving without money and without inheritance to France and starting your American Dream. Once this vicious cycle is entered, it is almost impossible to exit. This is why, in countries that have gone far enough into this process (Greece for example), in the public’s mind, the prevailing association to wealth is one of: corruption, which is justifiably despicable, but the public’s attempt to rectify that through more redistribution and central planning only makes the situation worse. Hence there is a point of no return, an economic event horizon, beyond which the vicious cycle becomes inescapable.
In my view the US has already passed that event horizon of no return. 2008 was the endgame of American prosperity. Now, with Obamacare alone, added as third major incentive-stifling entitlement, equal in size to the two already existing massive entitlement programs of Medicare and Social security, that trio of entitlements alone, are on auto pilot to drive Americans into Serfdom. A French style economy with endemic growth of 1.5% is perhaps the next equilibrium point. Equilibrium for a while that is, because at a 1.5% growth rate, a nation becomes 3% per year less prosperous, compared to the rest of the world which grows at 4.5% on average. And, of course, the most pernicious effect is that the 3% decline compounds year after year. We will live through French economic marginalization, but by the time Americans realize they are headed in the same direction, it will be too late. The tea party is exactly that: Too little too late.
As I said before, it is ironic, but, the compassionate goal of social-democracy leads to the cruel mid-long term outcome of economic decline. But for social-democrats, hope springs eternal. Hope that that one of these days a sizable enough proportion of citizens will sing Cumbaja, abandon mediocrity, and be convinced to produce under a central plan with little, personal gain, thus leading a great egalitarian society to growth rates that are on par with the worldwide 4.5% average. If it doesn’t happen then we have to try harder, we have to take an even greater egalitarian leap forward.
The only hope of this path leading to anything but economic marginalization is something else that social-democrats typically hate: genetic engineering. Of the human race that is. Perhaps the injection of sheep DNA sequences into the human genome. There is hope!
His bond fund probably has lots of government debt, so perhaps he thinks higher taxes will protect the value of those bonds.
Pimco’s Bill Gross has been dumping US government debt in favor of other alternatives including emerging-market opportunities.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/03/pimco-dumps-all-remaining-treasuries-in.html
An insight into PIMCO and its bond holdings from the Adam Smith Insitute: ‘Where are those bond vigilantes?‘