As I read through this I'm very struck with the fact that both greed and envy are deadly sins. For those more concerned with morality than money, they would even be very equivalent.
I can't imagine that Rich makes less than the entry price to what he calls "super rich". News at 11, $250K in INCOME today's world is a LOONNNNG way from "super rich". For many in that class, it is much closer to "paycheck to paycheck". Why? When you add the CURRENT (Rich thinks much too low) tax rates for Fed, State, FICA, etc, that $250K couple pays something north of $100K in taxes, plus, a dollar is not worth what it used to be -- in fact, it has lost 90% of it's value since 1900. $150K today is like someone making $15K in 1900! Not precisely "Super Rich".
Rich certainly knows this ... I suspect he is far richer than that, with maybe a few million in ASSETS. Now if one has say $2-4 Million in assets, PLUS an income in excess of $250K, we are getting to what is actually the "doorway to basic wealth", the point at which one no longer NEEDS to work to support their life. I guess once you have yours, trying to cut out any of the other riffraff from getting in must be good sport.
Seriously, I think what is afoot here is a more sinister version of the end of the Cold War problem. There certainly were a lot of Cold-warrior conservatives that cast about a bit for something to do. If the left was rational, then looking at the "poor" in America today vs 1900 would tell them "the war on poverty is over, and we won". They would be wrong of course -- free market capitalism, or at least a still tiny bit free capitalism "won" it the old fashioned, but hated by liberals way; "trickle down and raising all boats".
What we see the truth in however is liberals hate the rich and really don't care about the poor. They want to tear down the wealthy because they are the example of what is possible in America, and not nearly so much in other systems -- the person that has a special skill, idea, drive or vision and makes good. A person that exemplifies a basic goodness inherent in the American psyche, that is anathema to the liberal collectivist leveling view of nirvana.
Rich certainly knows this ... I suspect he is far richer than that, with maybe a few million in ASSETS. Now if one has say $2-4 Million in assets, PLUS an income in excess of $250K, we are getting to what is actually the "doorway to basic wealth", the point at which one no longer NEEDS to work to support their life. I guess once you have yours, trying to cut out any of the other riffraff from getting in must be good sport.
Seriously, I think what is afoot here is a more sinister version of the end of the Cold War problem. There certainly were a lot of Cold-warrior conservatives that cast about a bit for something to do. If the left was rational, then looking at the "poor" in America today vs 1900 would tell them "the war on poverty is over, and we won". They would be wrong of course -- free market capitalism, or at least a still tiny bit free capitalism "won" it the old fashioned, but hated by liberals way; "trickle down and raising all boats".
What we see the truth in however is liberals hate the rich and really don't care about the poor. They want to tear down the wealthy because they are the example of what is possible in America, and not nearly so much in other systems -- the person that has a special skill, idea, drive or vision and makes good. A person that exemplifies a basic goodness inherent in the American psyche, that is anathema to the liberal collectivist leveling view of nirvana.
Somehow Frank seems to think that anything bad that has happened to poverty, income growth, or employment is BECAUSE of whatever happens at the $250K+ level. Causality is always difficult to even reasonably postulate, let along prove, so a lot of the assertions in this column must be based on that old fixed economic pie view (if they are based on anything at all) -- the pie is only so big, what the "rich" are getting is something that is "taken away" from someone else. So patently not so that a C student in economics 101 understands that is completely false.
Unless one is simply insane, is dedicated to the destruction of the country, a congenital liar, or some combo of all and who knows what other malady, it seems impossible that lefty after lefty pundit could keep talking of $700 Billion in "cost" while utterly ignoring the $3 Trillion "cost" that holding on to the rest of the Bush cuts entails. Whatever the reason, they keep doing it and doing it.
Does Frank REALLY think that allowing people to keep a bit more of what they earn is the equivalent to them "grabbing everything that isn't nailed down?"?
We used to have GROWTH in our economy. GROWTH is what you need -- it is the magic genie that makes a bright economic future possible. So do the roots complain of the "cost" of the corn stalk growing? Do the leaves bitch about the "expense" of the tassel or the ear? Is it "fair" how high that tassel gets to be while those poor roots are stuck in the dirt? Perhaps they should go on strike -- or force the tassel to donate to the fund to allow the corn stalk to be uprooted and planted tassel down to "make it fair".
Somehow, I think that is basically what Rich has in mind. Even if the economy must be utterly destroyed to arrive at what is "fair", it could not happen too soon for his taste!
No comments:
Post a Comment