New York
Here is the 64 million dollar question: is there a moral case against soaking the rich? I can’t think of a better place to ponder such an issue than right here in the womb of capitalism, the Big Bagel, taking into account that within the narrow corridor that is Manhattan Island some of the greediest, as well as grubbiest, human beings live and work. The second richest American, a Nebraskan, says that the state should, but he would, wouldn’t he? I have never warmed to Warren Buffett because behind that cuddly, avuncular manner is a shrewdy who always looks out for number one. I know, I know, he’s leaving most of his moolah to charity, but when you’ve got 45 billion and have your family set for life, what’s the use of trying to take it with you. My beef with Buffett is the business he’s in. He makes bets on other people’s accomplishments and risks.
My old man built factories in Greece and in Africa, constructed and operated commercial vessels, erected hotels and started up insurance companies. He employed thousands, who in turn fed thousands, and so on. He never once bought an already existing company or business. I don’t know how many employees Warren Buffett feeds, but I guess they are mostly a few hundred accountants and analysts at best. Others take the risks and do the sweating, and if they’re successful, Warren baby invests in them and makes a killing for himself and those who invest with him. It is an honest and profitable way of making a living, but it ain’t true capitalism. It’s more like money-shuffling. That’s what Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan and others of their ilk do, and when they overdo their greed, the taxpayer comes in and rescues them. Job creation is not their strong point, and the reason we’re in the mess we’re in today is that too many of our best brains think like Buffett and not like John Theodoracopulos.
Sorry to blow old dad’s horn, but somebody’s got to say it. Capitalism should mean job creation à la Henry Ford, not banking à la Fred the Shred. Take the case of Steve Jobs, who died last week. A Big Bagel Times man by the name of Sorkin recently took him to task for not being a giver. (Sorkin, incidentally, has been accused by his co-writers of being a taker, crediting himself for research done by others in his office.) First of all, how would Sorkin know what Jobs gave away or didn’t? Just because he never bought a table at the Metropolitan Museum for 100 grand in order to sit next to Mercedes Bass — an idiotic woman whose hubby has had enough of her social climbing and has gone his own way — doesn’t mean that Jobs didn’t silently contribute or give help to others. He took only one dollar per annum as salary, which doesn’t sound to me like a taker. The fact that Jobs refused to join the Giving Pledge — the organisation founded by Buffett and Bill Gates to persuade rich families to pledge half their fortunes to charity — doesn’t mean a thing. Jobs built his company from scratch and it was his right to do whatever he wished with the money he made from it.
Which brings me to the mess we’re in. The only people to blame are the politicians and the Shylocks of Wall Street. The former now want the rich to bail them out. Taxing the rich is an easy sell. Yet taking taxes from us by force is morally abhorrent. These bums feasted all these years, lied, showboated and enriched themselves, and then they expect frugal people who worked for their wealth to pay for their follies. It is well known that as taxes rise people see themselves not as willing contributors but as exploited. The higher the taxes, the more unwilling wealth creators are forced to pay for things they disapprove of — foreign wars being a prime example.
Providing benefits for others by taxing within reason is fine and dandy, but punishing those who generate jobs and riches is like forcing the great Placido Domingo to stop singing and to shout like that arch-phoney Bono. High taxes never did nothin’ for nobody, except stifle economic growth and individual liberty. If Liliane Bettencourt signs a petition which urges the French government to tax her more — as she recently did — that’s her business. She needed some good publicity for a change. But she shouldn’t include others who have not had the bad taste to give a billion away to a much younger companion, nor stuff envelopes full of euros for Sarkozy to go home with. Fifty per cent tax on those making £150,000 per year is a joke. If I had to pay such a ratio on my yearly income I would move to Switzerland — where I actually am domiciled and where I pay a steep but fair amount. Buffett is just being a busybody trying to score morality points on the rest of his dull and rather ugly fellow billionaires. We all know that if one took all of Buffett’s money away it would last about one week taking care of those on welfare in New York State alone. Buffett should shut up and donate his money to budding entrepreneurs to start up businesses. That would not get him any publicity but it would create jobs and generate tax income for years to come. The rest is moral showing-off which impresses hoi polloi but not the poor little Greek boy.
Comments