The Moral Crisis Behind the Billionaire Wealth Tax* by Ruxandra Teslo. We hear a great deal about how such wealth taxes will cause rish people to leave their states, or move their money overseas. We also see statistics about how little this would provide in revenue, that in fact taking all their money wouldn't fund the government. But the moral case is less often made.
In recent years I have come to think increasingly in the language of virtue ethics: that certain things must be done because they are right, and that in the long run what is right tends also to be what is also “useful”. Institutions, like individuals, cannot long survive when they betray the virtues that justify their existence. Intellectual life, in particular, rests on a fragile moral foundation — honesty, seriousness, and a devotion to truth that must remain independent of immediate political or strategic goals.
*Which reminds me of Eat The Rich, by PJ O'Rourke
Haven't yet read the article you linked, but before I do:
ReplyDeleteI think that "Tax the Billionaires"/"Eat the Rich" has a couple of moral-ish dimensions. One is that money buys influence, even if the influence isn't illegal or (a different thing) corrupt. It is not healthy that a small class of hyper-rich have such inordinate influence. Yes, this is a version of "Cut down the stalk that grows too high," but it is a moderated one, and done in the service of the public, not of a tyrant, as in the original version.
"This is the danger of what might be called a kind of cultural kitsch. According to French philosopher Oliver Roy, who has beautifully and cogently identified a crisis of culture in his book “Empire of Norms”, kitsch arises when symbols, traditions, and cultural forms are reproduced without the underlying spirit that once animated them. They mimic the appearance of culture but lack its organic depth."
ReplyDeleteI agree. So did Owen Barfield. From his History in English Words:
" Certain moral qualities gain respect for themselves; the respect brings with it material benefits; weaker brethren affect the moral qualities in order to acquire the material benefits; hypocrisy is detected; all morality is treated as hypocrisy. The trite little cycle spins like a whirligig round and round the social history of the world, but this is a good place to put a finger on it, for it is a process in which the question of the meaning of words takes a particularly active part. It is, in fact, one of the few occasions upon which ordinary men, neither scientists nor poets, will deliberately attempt to alter the meanings of the words they must use."
I loved the Barfield quote. As to billionaires, I think of them as similar to mill owners in company towns. Their rule is enormous in narrow areas. They control whether the mill is open or closed, stays or goes, who gets blackballed, sharply narrows the field of who can be mayor, etc. Their kids get away with murder and people light their cigars for them. But in the next city down the river, it's a different tyrant. A very few can dominate entire industries, which gets them favors in other areas. Maybe even a Senator, or a massive shipping contract. Yet even then, there is so much they don't control that they might like to, at least in America and Canada.
ReplyDeleteBezos and Musk have dominated single sectors of the economy, and can influence legislation in that realm to become even more powerful. But when both have tried to extend that to media, they have become big players but much less dominant. They can't get what they want anymore. People hated competing against cutthroat Microsoft. I wouldn't have wanted to live in a company town. But in the end, it is more limited than it looks.
"Much of the resentment directed at modern elites, including tech billionaires has a moral undertone. Many people sense that those who hold great wealth and influence no longer occupy any recognizable civic or ethical role within the broader community. In earlier times, power was expected to carry visible obligations — duties of stewardship, patronage, and public virtue. Today..."
ReplyDeleteThose who followed the EN series over the summer and fall will recognize that as Aristotle's virtue of "magnificence." It was OK to be vastly wealthy; it was even good to be, because it enabled you to do great things for the public good that were beyond the ordinary person's ability, even many people's capabilities working together.
That is, by the way, also the best argument in favor of billionaires. Elon Musk can decide to build a rocket-to-Mars company because he wants to do so. He doesn't have to persuade millions of people to vote for him, then hundreds of Congressmen to set aside their priorities in favor of his. Nor does he have to persuade investors to give him money to blow up rockets for twenty years until they learn how to build one that works.
The speed of decision that a billionaire has, without the need for committees, enables them to rapidly move on worthy projects. Also, of course, unworthy ones; but too many of those, and you're out of the billionaire club. Does anyone believe that the government of California would do better and more wisely with the money if they were allowed to seize it?
Funny. Upon reading this post I was instantly reminded of Francisco
ReplyDeleted’Anconia's "Money Speech," from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. If you don't know it, or need a refresher, there are many excerpts found on the web. Here is a recited version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-T0ey0IKDA
...bearing in mind always that "billionaires" are just a class of human beings, beset with all the innate human moral frailties of any other human: ...from the Musk-like billionaire, through any man of the middle class, to the poorest of the poor.
Some donate to foundations. Some own multiple homes, some yachts the size of ore carriers [well, almost.] Some build hospitals, some race cars, etc. Some try to do "good," some squander their wealth.
If individuals who have energized our society and blessed it with the innovations and comforts that we now enjoy have been rewarded by means of "money," I'll suggest that should not necessarily be deemed a "bad" thing, in and of itself.
Saw a recent article on the unintended consequences of the 1991 "luxury tax" on yachts and the blue-collar job-losses that resulted. Reminded me of the 4 wooden-hulled minesweepers that were just retired from the USN and returned from the Persian Gulf – and how the yachtmaker who built a couple of them . . . isn't around anymore. Their demolished boatyard is now a nice city park, however.
ReplyDeleteIt also reminded me of a factoid that I thought to fact check a few weeks ago and found to be true:
The state of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services has a department thats purpose is just to know the health-state and future plans of "the 1%" residing in the state. They are spies, stalking certain people on social media and via any available data-brokers in order to glean any hints that someone might be about to move to Florida or kick-the-bucket!
There are a number of individual CT taxpayers who, if they were to stop being CT taxpayers for any reason, would constitute a "shock" and budget crisis w.r.t. expected revenue to meet budgeted obligations.