Distribution of Wealth

This little excerpt, from James Lileks’ web log today, seemed very appropriate:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0604/062804.html

[Note: Scroll down to the bottom to find this excerpt if you want to follow the link]

A minor political note, if you?re interested in such things. The other day a young girl came to the door to solicit my support for her presidential candidate. I asked her why I should vote for this man. She was very nice and earnest, but if you got her off the talking points she was utterly unprepared to argue anything, because she didn?t know what she was talking about. She had bullet points, and she believed that any reasonable person would see the importance of these issues and naturally fall in line. But she could not support any of her assertions. Her final selling point: Kerry would roll back the tax cuts.

Then came the Parable of the Stairs, of course. My tiresome, shopworn, oft-told tale, a piece of unsupportable meaningless anecdotal drivel about how I turned my tax cut into a nice staircase that replaced a crumbling eyesore, hired a few people and injected money far and wide - from the guys who demolished the old stairs, the guys who built the new one, the family firm that sold the stone, the other firm that rented the Bobcats, the entrepreneur who fabricated the railings in his garage, and the guy who did the landscaping. Also the company that sold him the plants. And the light fixtures. It?s called economic activity. What’s more, home improvements added to the value of this pile, which mean that my assessment would increase, bumping up my property taxes. To say nothing of the general beautification of the neighborhood. Next year, if my taxes didn?t shoot up, I had another project planned. Raise my taxes, and it won?t happen ? I won?t hire anyone, and they won?t hire anyone, rent anything, buy anything. You see?

?Well, it?s a philosophical difference,? she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clilcking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. ?I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.? Those last two words were said with an edge.

?But then I wouldn?t have hired them,? I said. ?I wouldn?t have new steps. And they wouldn?t have done anything to get the money.?

?Well, what did you do?? she snapped.

?What do you mean??

?Why should the government have given you the money in the first place??

?They didn?t give it to me. They just took less of my money.?

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

?Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.?

Then she left.

And walked down the stairs. I let her go without charging a toll. It?s the philanthropist in me.

[quote]randman wrote:
Dude,

You scare me. [/quote]

I’m not surprised. Reason will do that to your types.

Oh, is that what it’s called? Because I thought your summation of the issues was called oversimplification and short-sightedness! Thanks for the clarification, though. Note to self: “Basic economics…basic…”

You know, I give your arguments credence, to some degree, and I’ve stated over and over that the strong arguments on both sides are a testament to the complexity of the issue. Instead of acknowledging this, you and your brethren are fixed on your “right answer.” Open your eyes.

That said, why don’t YOU tell ME how many millionaires France has compared to the US. Then tell me if this figure matters at all. I believe it is a strong MIDDLE CLASS that has helped the US become a strong economic power. We can have millions of millionaires, but if we also have millions of the poorest of the poor, what good is it?

Didn’t Reagan call this trickle down economics? I believe it is still up for debate whether or not it is an appropriately effective economic approach. But hey, you must have gotten the memo from Rush that it is the be all end all of economics…yeah, and Bush’s tax cuts helped too.

…and I am saddened that you are not in charge of your own thoughts.

By the way, what in particular did I say that was so threatening and drastic? Seems like I’ve put forward only a balanced and respectful viewpoint of the issue.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RSU,

You do not “redistribute wealth.” The entire question is wrong! [/quote]

I beleive the phrase is distribution of wealth and it is the term used in social/political philosophy for the problem. Social contractarians must establish ways to determine how the system works, and part of that is distributing wealth. I suppose considering the words literally might be misleading, but it’s not.

[quote]Taxes were first initiated in order to strengthen defense, not support some woman who did not know enough to use contraception. (I know that sounds nasty, but let’s face it, that is a large degree of welfare).

As far as things being “nice and easy on the Pull-up kings planet.” Not so! I have worked very, very hard in my life. I have made some money and invested it wisely. Is that a bad thing in your world? [/quote]

Absolutely not a bad thing in my world. And I don’t know why this socialist position has been placed on me. All I’ve really said previously, in this thread, is that the issues are complicated and that asking a wealthy person to give up some luxury is more reasonable than asking a poor person to sacrifice necessity.
I am glad that you’ve gotten yourself financially secure. Of course I don’t disrespect that and don’t want to lower you to a level of poverty! I also don’t want to tax you 60-70% (which is how this thread began…somehow your idiot friends pegged me with supporting this idea!).

No, it means you owe it to the society that provides the framework for you to achieve such success. It is part of your social contract. Using terms like “someone who chose not to work hard and succeed” is exactly the type of terminology that I think oversimplifies this issue. People with your beliefs are those who tend to think everyone who is underclassed got their because of a lack of determination or a lack of drive. I believe this is a serious social issue and is far more complicated than that. But you don’t, so let’s not dwell.

I commend your actions. What are you suggesting, though? --that everyone should decide where to donate their money to help the less fortunate? If so, sorry, but your dreaming. People are far too greedy. Dare I say that the fact that you can write off your charitable donations is a major reason why you (or your business) do it?

Again, I’m 24, have been in the workforce full time, and now juggle graduate school, work, and volunteer work. Our lives are no doubt different, but please don’t disrespect my views based on my age. I’m pretty well educated, fairly in tune with my perspective and convictions, and constantly strive to better understand…everything!

[quote]As I have said to you in past conversations: when you begin to earn …lets say $1,000 per week and you only take home $500 because of state and federal taxes, you will then quickly see my point of view.

This is not a slam on your age. It’s just that some things have to be experienced to be fully appreciated.[/quote]

I can dig it. It makes sense. However, I don’t think my perspective will change because of my central beliefs. We’ll see, though. I hope to always be considerate and concerned for the complexity of people’s lives and struggles and sensitive to people’s differences.

[quote]PtrDR wrote:
Why is it that the liberals can make a moral “judgement” about taxing peoples income to help others yet openly and militantly oppose any other form of “morality” legislation?[/quote]

Who made a moral judgment? PtrDR: I’d urge you to read posts all the way through before responding to them. You consistently misrepresent what is said and intended.

BB: Well said, and I must agree to some degree. Let me remind everyone of this obviously overlooked line from my initial post:

This is why I waste no breath in the politics forum because of idiots like RSU. And no not just because you’re liberal. I’ve seen intelligent arguments put forth by other liberal-minded people on this board but you’re not one of them. Continue to argue you’re position until you are blue in the face. I am defnitely done with this thread already by just seeing RSU’s responses to everyone so far. Completely illogical thoughts, with no experience behind them, a truly liberal youngen with thoughts of nirvana and equal wealth for everyone. You trully are a waste of space on this board…

Watch everyone this will really get him riled up :wink:

BTW,

I’m not going to waste any time looking up specific statistics (i.e. number of millionaires in France) to convince a 24 yr old to let go of his misguided views. You are way too committed to your views whether they are right or wrong. I’ve seen a lot of your posts and you seem to want to fight for them at all costs with every ounce of energy you’ve got. It’s apparent you’ve got way too much invested into them. A man convinced against his will is of the sam opinion still…

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I think it becomes a matter of compassion. I am a compassionate person and I think if suffering can be prevented, then it ought to be done.
[/quote]

Two issues:

One: Wealth is earned, not distributed. People make good choices or people make bad choices, and they live with the consequences. The intellectuals you mention no doubt include Karl Marx, who, in addition to being smart, was also certifiably insane. His system is also a proven failure.

Two: I have been waiting for an opportunity to post this thought, and you have set me up perfectly, sir. Compassion means one’s personal willingness to contribute to certain societal needs, which, as we can all see, exist plentifully. That is completely different from expecting the government to do it out of someone else’s pocket. That, to me, is the height of personal IRResponsibility! If you have a cause you support, then SUPPORT IT! Support it financially or by personal involvement, or however you can meet the need. Leveraging the government to extort the wealth of others to do those things for you is LAZINESS, pure and simple. If you are so compassionate, then DO SOMETHING! YOURSELF! No one can help everyone, but everyone can (and should) help someone. It’s SOOOOOOO easy to be “compassionate” with other people’s money, isn’t it.

[quote]randman wrote:
This is why I waste no breath in the politics forum because of idiots like RSU. And no not just because you’re liberal. I’ve seen intelligent arguments put forth by other liberal-minded people on this board but you’re not one of them. Continue to argue you’re position until you are blue in the face. I am defnitely done with this thread already by just seeing RSU’s responses to everyone so far. Completely illogical thoughts, with no experience behind them, a truly liberal youngen with thoughts of nirvana and equal wealth for everyone. You trully are a waste of space on this board…

Watch everyone this will really get him riled up ;)[/quote]

I’d disagree, as would most - I think - around here. Reading my posts indicates none of what you’ve mentioned, so it seems that “riling me up” is your final resort. No one is “blue in the face”…it is an argument and I’ve taken time to respond to your original request and then taken time to reply to everyone’s responses.

So there, unriled.

In defense of RSU, we disagree on quite a bit, but this thread was going fine on a number of levels.

Randman, hopefully you have something better to contribute than that last piece of essentially nothing.

RSU…I didn’t it was YOU who said this personally. But that is what is intended when liberals decide the “moral” thing to do is to redistribute money by raising taxes.

I really think that this is much more complicated than people think. A flat tax percentage oversimplifies it.

Like was said before, it seems that many people think poverty is a result of laziness and lack of determination. And in all honesty it is sometimes. But in many times it is not. Many are born into poverty and never get out. Don’t misunderstand this, either, poverty is more than just how much money you make.

I’m going to go ahead and expose myself here. I was the result of a teenage pregnancy; my mother was 15 when I was born. We moved a lot, and I grew up with a lot of different “dads”(read: live-in boyfriends). Life was hard from the moment I was born. My mother got food stamps and WIC among other government aid.

Now, I don’t really know if my mom was lazy or ever tried to get us out of poverty, but we never did get out. She is dead broke today and lives with an abusive boyfriend.

I think most people would agree that education(not necassarily traditiotnal schooling) is the key to wealth, but it takes more than just offering programs. Children born poor have many distractions that hinder their advancing in society.

Growing up like this affects every part of your life. I like to think I was a bright kid, but I had trouble in school because I was always hungry. I was often tired and distracted, too. Living in a poor neighborhood, you have to worry about drugs and crime.

I’m sure that most kids want to learn how to get out of this life, but they have no idea how to do it. I dropped out of high school when I was 17 and I was working 2 jobs. I thought this was the way to go and I was getting somewhere. I finally had some money and could buy some nice things.

It took me 4 years to find out this wasn’t the best way to go. I burnt myself out working 65-75 hours a week for 3 years, doing shitty, low-paying jobs.

Not only that, but I never learned responsible financial management. No one in my family ever had credit cards or car payments. I filed bankruptcy when I was 21.

One other result of growing up in poverty is the high number of teen pregnancies. There are many reasons for this, but the fact is that poor children are much more likely to bear children before they reach 21. This definately puts a grinding halt to any advancements in society.

What I am trying to say is that while you may think that when you are getting taxed more, it is to help the irresponsible parent. I see it as a way to help the innocent child born into this unfortunate situation. Granted, if the parent is a horrible parent, then the child still loses.

I’m sure many people know examples of people that made it out of poverty and now lead good lives and prosper. But for every one that does make it, how many do you think get let behind to continue the cycle? I know I’m not “out” yet.

Let me sum up where I am in life. After I filed bankruptcy when I was 21, I joined the Marines. Now, the military does offer a lot of good programs and educatioanl tools to help children become better citizens.

I’m 28 now and I have been out of the Marines for 2 years now and moved back to Wisconsin because of lower cost of living. I am taking classes at the community college and slowly working my way through college. I still struggle with my bills occasionally, but I get by. And my kids are in a better place than I was at their age.

Looking back, I don’t mind not having nice toys or clothes or games growing up, but I do wish we didn’t move around so much. I wish I knew more about becoming a responsible adult. I wish someone told to not worry about material possesions until after you get some schooling and settle down.
I wish I knew more about saving and the importance of it.

But now I know a lot more, and I know to teach my children these same thimgs. There are programs out there to help poor children and teenagers, but most of them are too distracted with their own everyday struggles to even notice.

Maybe I rambled a little here, but I wanted to point out that other peoples’ tax dollars were important for me to make it in life. My mom rarely had a job as I grew up and we needed government aid to survive. Was my mother lazy? Maybe. I don’t know. But either way it wasn’t my fault, and I needed those tax dollars, too.

“Why should my $90,000 be taxed at a higher rate than the person making $30,000” A couple reasons, I think. There are children that need your help. It is irresposible to say the parents need to do more to help their own kids. You’re right, they probably do need to do more, but should the children suffer? Should I have been left behind to continue the cycle of poverty?

Secondly, by living in a country that allowed you to prosper and attain wealth, I do believe that you owe a little bit more to the country. I know you worked hard to get where you are and busted your balls to get your money, but you were afforded that opportunity by living in America.

There’s faulty logic in saying that you have no drive to make more money if you are gonna get taxed more. You still make more money. You may lose a higher percentage, but you’re still making more. If you don’t like it then don’t make more money. Your perogative.

Many will say I only feel this way because I “only” make $30-35 a year. I think I feel this way because of how I grew up and what I’ve seen. I am by no means well-off, but I still give both time and money to charity. I wish everyone was charitable and willing to share, then this would probably be a moot argument.

I wish it were simple enough where we could identify the “lazy ones” and exclude them from receiving any aid or relief. Then we could give only to those who really needed for whatever reason. But, unfortunately it’s not that easy, and the fact is there are people in need are there are people with no desire to get out of poverty. I don’t know who’s who. If you do, then maybe we solved this argument.

Thanks for reading.

[quote]malonetd wrote:

Maybe I rambled a little here, but I wanted to point out that other peoples’ tax dollars were important for me to make it in life. My mom rarely had a job as I grew up and we needed government aid to survive. Was my mother lazy? Maybe. I don’t know. But either way it wasn’t my fault, and I needed those tax dollars, too.

“Why should my $90,000 be taxed at a higher rate than the person making $30,000” A couple reasons, I think. There are children that need your help. It is irresposible to say the parents need to do more to help their own kids. You’re right, they probably do need to do more, but should the children suffer? Should I have been left behind to continue the cycle of poverty?

Secondly, by living in a country that allowed you to prosper and attain wealth, I do believe that you owe a little bit more to the country. I know you worked hard to get where you are and busted your balls to get your money, but you were afforded that opportunity by living in America.

There’s faulty logic in saying that you have no drive to make more money if you are gonna get taxed more. You still make more money. You may lose a higher percentage, but you’re still making more. If you don’t like it then don’t make more money. Your perogative.

Many will say I only feel this way because I “only” make $30-35 a year. I think I feel this way because of how I grew up and what I’ve seen. I am by no means well-off, but I still give both time and money to charity. I wish everyone was charitable and willing to share, then this would probably be a moot argument.

I wish it were simple enough where we could identify the “lazy ones” and exclude them from receiving any aid or relief. Then we could give only to those who really needed for whatever reason. But, unfortunately it’s not that easy, and the fact is there are people in need are there are people with no desire to get out of poverty. I don’t know who’s who. If you do, then maybe we solved this argument.

Thanks for reading.[/quote]

And on the other hand:

First, let’s look at your reasoning. You state that people with more resources should pay more because there are children who need the help.

OK: There are children who need help. But it doesn’t explain why this help should come from taking a greater percentage of one person’s money rather than any other solution. Not that I advocate this, but the situation you laid out would make a great case for forced sterilization and the government coming in and taking children away from all poor parents. After all, there are children who need help, and the forced sterilization could reduce that number while forcibly removing them from their poor parents would put the government in the position to insure they were getting proper nutritiona and education.

Now I will reiterate: I do not support either of those fixes. But merely pointing out there is a problem, i.e. poor children, does not argue for your preferred solution, which is income transfer from those who earn more to those who earn less. The “poor children” problem is just that: a problem. It is not an argument for a particular solution.

And that is not even getting in to the arguments that welfare payments, due to perverse disincentives, actually perpetuate the poverty cycle. We can get into those if you would like – just let me know. Suffice it to say, for now, that many believe that simply transferring money makes the problem worse, irrespective of whether those who wish to do so say it is “for the children.”

On another tack, pretend I am a Mormon with 13 kids making $75K per year and living in NYC. Now the government coming in and taking that money actively harms my kids, because I need all my resources to help ensure their futures and educations. Why should my hypothetical Mormon self be forced to subsidize other people’s kids at the expense of mine?

Lastly, I will point out that this reasoning is a pet peeve of mine – a trigger if you will. I’m sure malonetd is not a habitual appealer of “it’s for the children”, but I’d bet you dollars to donuts that if you see that justification trotted out by a politician for some program, that program takes away freedom or confiscates property with very suspect intellectual back-up. After all, we all know that we must keep steroids illegal for the sake of the children, that ephedra was banned for the sake of the children, and that mandatory seatbelt laws and anti-junk-food laws are all enacted for the sake of the children.

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Guys, surely you must be aware that these issues are more complex than you or I could imagine? Try some humility, and perhaps education, and get a clue of the immeasurable complexity of issues such as this![/quote]

This is my area of expertise - I don’t really think you want to get into a pissing contest over my qualifications.

Your overstatement of the complexity of this issue reflects your ignorance of the subject matter.

A flat tax will work. It is simple. It is fair. It is NOT complex. Unless you think Steve Forbes is an uneducated windbag

The only thing that comlicates the situation is the politics of getting it passed. I’ll defer that to someone who understands it.

Where does humility fit into this conversation? I love the way you know who needs what around here.

Oh yeah:

And then there’s the whole argument about the Laffer Curve, and marginal tax rates high enough to discourage investment – which basically boils down to the fact that more people will be kept in poverty if you punish people for successful investment, because fewer investments will be made and thus growth will be lower, jobs will be less plentiful and purchasing power will grow more slowly.

And, of course, there’s the fact of all that other stuff the government wastes tax dollars on that has nothing to do with either social welfare programs (your issue) or defense and police (my issues).

But really, that’s all pragmatic. On a principle level, I still have a problem with someone else deciding what I can “afford.”

I enjoyed reading your post malonetd. Thank you for sharing your story. Mine was very similiar with respect to my childhood.
Government help was one thing that helped my family when I was young. The bigger thing was faith in Jesus Christ because it put down the moral foundation to live life. Someone who has Christ in their life will in general make better decisions.

My problem with some of the elite liberals for example is that they are fabulously wealthy but don’t do a thing really to help the poor themselves. What has Moore donated to unwed mothers? or single parent families?
They pretend to care about “humanity” but would never stoop to really show compassion for someone sitting right next to them! They could never sit at someone’s bedside with cancer and comfort them at they take their last breath.
They pretend to care about people yet think drilling a hole in an unborn babies head and vacuuming out the brains is “A ok”. Because of these type of moral incongruencies, they have no crediblity with me on “moral” issues; whether its the “morality” of taking my money to help the poor and “disenfranchised” or the immorality of saying “if it feels good…do it!”.

Thanks again for sharing!

One more thing (and then I’ll quit for now, I promise):

I wanted to do a little math exercise with RSU’s original numbers:

RSU Wrote: “What seems to occur is this: if someone makes $20K/year and they lose 20%, then they’re down to $16K. If this person is a single mother, for example, with no father paying child support, this taxation seems to be eating into her necessary expenses. Conversely, if someone earns $250K and 20% is taken out, then their income is $200K. I think it is more appropriate for someone to lose out on some luxuries than for another to fail to meet their basic needs. Even if this more wealthy person was taxed 50%, then they earn $125K. This income is certainly comfortable and will afford most a very, very nice life.”

Me: The person who earned $250K has paid 20%, or, $50K, into the kitty. The person who earns $20K has paid 20%, or $4K, into the kitty.

The person with $250K has already paid over 12 times more than the person with $20K, before you even get into taking a greater percentage of that person’s money because someone has decided the person with $250K “can afford it.”

This is before you even account for the fact that the person with $20K in our current system will actually pay far less in taxes due to credits, and will also be eligible for welfare payments, which will not be taxed.

From a strictly economic perspective, the person paying the greater amount is also likely to use a smaller portion of the government services that his tax dollars pay for. So, in essence, he is paying a greater amount of money for a lesser amount of goods before you even get into trying to justify taking even more money from him “because he can afford it.”

Also, I forgot to point out above that even deciding what is a “luxury” and what is a “basic need” is a moral judgment – and don’t think the definitions aren’t futzed with by people with agendas. Just take a gander at the way they actually figure the poverty statistics and you will see what I mean.

This is all typographical masturbation. I’m all for tax cuts and a flat tax, hell, I want Steve Forbes for President–but unfortunately, with the current global climate, I don’t think much is going to change any time soon.

RSU,

You are a good guy, with a good heart!

However, when you use the term “greedy” please do not use it regarding those of us who want to keep more of the money that we worked hard for.

That my friend is not greed. Greed: “Selfish desire beyond reason” has nothing to do with wanting to take home more than 50% of your gross dollars. Is that unreasonable? I don’t think it is.

Again, you really have to have it done to you repeatedly in order to truly appreciate it’s negative impact.

I do not think that everyone who collects money from the public dole is lazy. However, a good share of them are! I think Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress had it right by implementing “workfare.” It was one small step in the right direction.

I also think that this problem is more of a moral problem than one realizes. Hard work, discipline, positive habits, self pride. Those are a few of the things that are normally missing from the typical welfare recipient, (not all of them, there are exceptions). We help no one, long term, by handing them a “free lunch.” All we do is teach them not to work by rewarding them for not working. They may say that they do not like it, however there is not incentive to change it when the check is in the mail box.

I understand that there needs to be a safety net for some, however it has gone well beyond what is reasonable in my opinion. Currently 1 in 5 families are receiving some sort of government assistance. When should we roll this back? Should we wait until 1 in 3 families are on the dole?

The answer is not throwing more money at the problem. I think the answer is proper training and motivation for those who are “disadvantaged.” I am more sensitive to the problem than you can appreciate. I simply feel that over taxation is the wrong answer. You should never punish success! When you do that you get less of it.

You also made a comment about “trickle down” economics. Let me just repeat something that I am sure you have heard in the past: I have never seen a poor person hire anyone! If I own a business that employees 100 people, those 100 people have jobs and spend money. this in turn helps the economy. Call it what you want, I call it smart economics!

Expand the economic base with tax reduction and you will have more people employed paying more taxes!

Take care,

Zeb

ZEB
How do you feel about government’s “welfare” for big energy companies, subsidizing factory farmers, bailing out the Savings and Loan companies, bailing out the airlines, etc etc?

How come “wealth redistribution” is so horrible when it goes to some little old lady in Peoria, but it’s A-OK when huge amounts of taxpayer money goes to big energy companies that are already extremely profitable, or companies that have used bad (or illegal) business practices?

Wealthy people can say they don’t want to pay for social programs and safety nets for other less-fortunate Americans. I would like to know what kind of country would they like to live in? One where people freeze to death in the Winter?

As an aside, I heard that the number one indicator for a person’s success in life is whether or not their mother went to college. Social safety nets keep peoples’ heads above water. As a person who has been lucky enough to have been born squarely into the middle class, I can recognize that some people in our country are born less-priveleged than others. I don’t mind paying a high rate of taxes if it means that none of my fellow Americans are starving to death!!!

As far as tax cuts, never before in our history has a tax cut been enacted during a time of war! It seems like some of the Righties here love the war in Iraq, but don’t want to pay for it.

There is no such thing as a tax cut when it causes deficits! All you are doing is postponing the pain, and passing on the bill to another time. You are putting tax cuts on a credit card and running up interest, and sending the bill to your kids.

It Takes a Village to Make a Millionaire:
New Report Blasts Myth of the Self-Made Man

“I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned.”
~Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

A new report, “I Didn’t Do It Alone: Society’s Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success,” spotlights successful entrepreneurs and concludes that the myth of self-made success is destructive to the social and economic infrastructure that fosters wealth creation.

Martin Rothenberg, the son of a housepainter and sales clerk, grew up to become a multimillionaire software entrepreneur.

Investor Warren Buffett is the world’s second-wealthiest person.

Ben Cohen co-founded Ben & Jerry’s with no business background and walked away with $40 million when the company was sold years later.

While these three seem typical examples of self-made success, they’re not. None of them believes they did it on their own. Like others profiled in the report, they attribute their success to many factors, among them public schools and colleges, government investment in research and small business assistance, contributions of employees, and strong legal and financial systems.

“How we think about wealth creation is important since policies such as large tax cuts for the wealthy often draw on the myth of the self-made man,” says “I Didn’t Do It Alone” co-author Chuck Collins. “Taxes are portrayed as onerous, unfair redistribution of privately created wealth - not as reinvestment or giving back to society. Yet, where would many wealthy entrepreneurs be today without taxpayer investment in the Internet, transportation, public education, legal system, the human genome and so on?”

Jim Sherblom, a venture capitalist and former chief financial officer of the biotech firm, Genzyme, says, “The opportunities to create wealth are all taking advantage of public goods - like roads, transportation, markets - and public investments. None of us can claim it was all personal initiative. A piece of it was built upon this infrastructure that we all have this inherent moral obligation to keep intact.”

“I Didn’t Do It Alone” shows not only that society’s role in wealth creation is significant, but if that role withers from inadequate revenues and political will, then opportunities for wealth and innovation will shrink. Entrepreneurism, the economy and society will be undermined.

“I Didn’t Do It Alone” was written by Chuck Collins, co-author with Bill Gates Sr. of “Wealth and Our Commonwealth” and associate director of United for a Fair Economy; Scott Klinger, co-director of Responsible Wealth and a Chartered Financial Analyst; and Mike Lapham, co-director of Responsible Wealth.

Responsible Wealth is a project of United for a Fair Economy, an independent national non-profit that raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart.


SELECTED QUOTES from “I DIDN’T DO IT ALONE: Society’s Contribution to Individual Wealth and Success:”

“I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned.”
~Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

“My wealth is not only a product of my own hard work. It also resulted from a strong economy and lots of public investment, both in others and in me. I received a good public school education and used free libraries and museums paid for by others. I went to college under the GI Bill. I went to graduate school to study computers and language on a complete government scholarship… While teaching at Syracuse University for 25 years, my research was supported by numerous government grants… My university research provided the basis for Syracuse Language Systems…”
~Martin Rothenberg, founder of Syracuse Language Systems and Glottal Enterprises

“Lots of people who are smart and work hard and play by the rules don’t have a fraction of what I have. I realize I don’t have my wealth because I’m so brilliant. Luck has a lot to do with it.”
~Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, Inc.

“The opportunities to create wealth are all taking advantage of public goods–like roads, transportation, markets–and public investments… We are all standing on the shoulders of all that came before us, and creating a society for our children and those that come after us. We have obligations as part of that.”
~Jim Sherblom, venture capitalist and former chief financial officer of Genzyme

“I feel like there’s no way I’ve done this by myself… Every single person we worked with has contributed to making Hanna what it is today… People in Sweden don’t like paying taxes either, but nobody would ever suggest that you would close schools because you didn’t have enough money to keep them open.”
~ Gun Denhart, co-founder of Hanna Andersson clothing company

“I know a lot of people who believe their success is only due to their hard work, their ingenuity… They say, ‘I made it, it’s mine and I’m going to hold onto it.’… My response it that a lot of factors go into building a successful business. For instance, did they go to a public high school or a tax-supported college? A lot of folks forget the help they got… The support of our legal and financial system…is unique in the world in assisting business enterprise. We take it for granted.”
~ David Lewis, founder of AirGas

http://faireconomy.org/notalone/