

A New Year's Resolution for the Rich - asnyder
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-new-years-resolution-fo_b_802480.html

======
relic17
Unfortunately, this type of philosophy will do further damage to the country.
If any rich person wants to donate his/her wealth, he/she is free and should
be free to do so. This would be an admirable act, especially if the person
takes great care how the money is invested (Steve Jobs is right in saying that
it is harder to give a dollar away than to make one). But to call for
legislation that mandates further and deeper redistribution of wealth (i.e.
forcefully taking from someone to give to another), or to imply that spending
your wealth instead of giving it away is immoral, is, in itself, unethical.

The problems with education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other areas that
Mr. Harris bemoans, have most likely arisen due to legislation that distorted
the real economic incentives of the people using these markets. Pouring other
people's money into these disfunctional areas would achieve nothing more than
a short-lived alleviation of the symptom. The root cause will remain intact.

"Make college free for anyone who can't afford it," Mr. Harris calls. Well,
someone has to pay (for teachers, facilities, equipment, etc.). Who will do
that? The rich? What if they don't want to? Should we grab a gun and go to
their homes to take their money away? Or should we revile them in blogs and
newspapers? Why do most people forget that it is precisely the rich (except
those who amassed their wealth in non-free markets, distorted by government
intervention), who, by virtue of their ability to build businesses or to
create value for their employers, have already created the most wealth for
others as well? Any reliable machine we use, any good service we enjoy was
created by able people, and their wealth is miniscule in comparison with the
benefit they have brought to others as a by-product of their effort. To deny
such people the freedom to use their wealth as they please will likely kill
their incentive to be productive.

To tackle another of Mr. Harris' points - it is obvious that chance is
involved in success. However, it is illogical and unethical to claim that
since chance played a role in someone's success, that person is obliged to
give away part of his/her wealth to another person, who has nothing to do with
the life and work of the former. Chance does not give anyone the right to
claim a portion of another person's wealth.

The solution is not in more aggressive income transfer. It is in freeing
markets and letting people do the best for themselves.

------
TomOfTTB
The problem with leftists (which I'm choosing to define as "to the left of
normal liberals) is they become obsessed with money.

Even when they know money is an ineffective tool to solve the problem. Take
education. Someone who lives and breathes politics like Sam Harris absolutely
must know we're 4th in per pupil education and that our University system is
absolutely broken. Yet what does he suggest as a solution...

"there is no question that a true breakthrough in education will require an
immense investment of further resources. Here's an expensive place to start:
make college free for anyone who can't afford it."

Also his obsession with the rich blinds him to the contradictions in his own
arguments. For example he says...

"Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even
now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no
more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt
politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed
the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously
worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who
would not hesitate to invest in the future of America."

But then ends the article like this...

"Let Gates and Buffett convene a team of brilliant people to lay out the
priorities. But again, we should remember that they could scarcely fail to
improve our situation. Simply repaving our roads, the dilapidation of which
causes $54 billion in damage to our cars every year, would be better than
doing nothing."

Well...if that's the case why doesn't he go out and hire someone to repair his
local roads and donate their labor to the city? It's not that expensive to fix
a pot hole or two

~~~
zootar
Harris wants to do more than fix potholes, if he can. He wants a few smart,
rich, and reasonably sincere people like Gates and Buffet to come up with a
plan for him to do a lot of good with his money. When he says that repaving
roads would be better than doing nothing, he's just saying that a good plan
executed now will be better than a perfect plan executed never.

------
tsotha
Hmmm, well, the one commodity that never seems to be in short supply is people
who think it's their duty to tell other people how the fruits of their labors
should be spent.

Incidentally, the author confuses tax _rate_ with tax _receipts_. The rich in
1950 had a much higher rate, but they paid no more taxes than the rich of
today. The whole point of the tax changes in 1996 was to eliminate all the
loopholes and gamesmanship that was going on in the tax code and make rates
more reflective of reality.

~~~
zootar
I, too, am irritated by people who advocate raising taxes for (or greater
charity in) every bracket above their own. But Harris isn't doing that. He's
asking the two former richest people in the world to tell him how to spend the
fruits of his own labors.

But beyond that, Harris points out that a significant fraction of your
"fruits" are not of your labors but of your favorable circumstances. He's
telling you that you ought to share some of the fruits of your good fortune.

Even if you deny the role of chance in your financial success, how you spend
your money has strong ethical implications. If other people believe I'm acting
unethically in some way, I do consider it their duty to tell me.

~~~
tsotha
>But beyond that, Harris points out that a significant fraction of your
"fruits" are not of your labors but of your favorable circumstances. He's
telling you that you ought to share some of the fruits of your good fortune.

I know that's a common perception on the left, but I don't accept it. I don't
know anyone super-wealthy, but the people I know who are at least mid-six-
figures didn't get their through favorable circumstances.

------
julius_geezer
Has Gates's influence in primary education been helpful? That is not clear to
me.

------
aresant
"throughout the 1950's . . . the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90
percent"

This statement's math is inaccurate.

In the "mid 50s" there were many more brackets, and in fact the 90% rate was
for incomes in the 2m/yr+ range adjusted for inflation.

A more fair comparison is to look at today's top rate bracket which is
anything above $373,650.

In 1955 that was ~$47,500 inflation adjusted, and the marginal tax rate for
that bracket was 72%.

Not arguing the point that a greater share of the top earners INCOME went to
taxes back in the day, just that 90% is not an accurate representation of the
top, or wealthy class tax.

Beyond that what bugs me about this line is that he uses it as proof that
taxes are lower today than they have been in the past, when in fact that is
not accurate.

Trends in state taxes, capital gains, property taxes (and values), and sales
taxes add to the burden today at every level, so marginal tax is not the best
measure.

A better measure is total tax revenue against GPD which, shown below,
illustrates that the percentage of tax revenue has GROWN since the 1950s:

[http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=195...](http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s)

and the history of marginal tax rates:

[http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_histo...](http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history-20101220.swf)

~~~
jshen
Showing that tax revenue has grown doesn't say anything about the distribution
of that burden which i would find more interesting.

~~~
aresant
Your wish is my command:

<http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/>

and

<http://www.truthandpolitics.org/fed-tax-burden-cbo.php>

~~~
rskar
From these ref's, it's clear to see that the Federal tax code hardly put a
damper on the average income of the top 1%, 5% and 10% - their average income
rose (the "Top 1%" doubled!) from 1977 to 1995. Every household _not_ in the
"Highest 20%" quintile, on the other hand, pretty much held steady (or
decreased slightly).

Perhaps the reason that "fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in
individual income taxes" is that their incomes are so low. In any case, the
percentage of "income tax burden" borne by the "Top" (1%/5%/10%) will of
course rise as their incomes rise at a rate which outpaces everybody's below.

~~~
jshen
it's also important to remember that that top 1% use far more government
services than the rest of us.

------
itistoday
I think this article contains pure wisdom. I'm getting hints that many people
are starting see this as well. If you have a runaway success, then you're in a
position to make that success into something really meaningful, not just for
you, but for so many other people, and that, in turn, I think you will find
even more rewarding. If you don't know how to contribute, then help those that
do.

------
maeon3
Imagine all of the wealth in the world was redistributed so that everyone had
exactly the same amount of money.

Those in poverty and the foolish would spend their money on expensive consumer
items and long vacations that produce no income later, falling back into
poverty because they can't/wont work.

The moderately intelligent would continue to manage money reasonably well and
would spend their money conservatively until various circumstances whittled
down what they had until they had to go back to work to stay afloat.

The rich (those evil bastards) would be clever and would save their money,
work hard although they already had pleanty of money, invest it well, take
risks, employ others and acquire money from the other two groups.

In a matter of 5 to 10 years, the poor, middle class and rich will shuffle
themselves back to their respective places. And you will have to redistribute
wealth again so that things will "be fair".

~~~
beoba
Yes, the world is fair and just and everyone deserves to be where they are
today. This is why our society operates according to a caste system, and we
should preserve it whenever possible.

Ergo the rich deserve to stay rich in perpetuity without any effort or
contribution to society on their part. They should be able to set aside a pile
of cash and reap the capital gains forever, with only a 15% tax rate on that
income.

It is the natural order.

Edit add: In addition to the aforementioned caste reference, I'm seeing a lot
of parallels to feudalism here.

~~~
kiba
Rich people often lose their money due to poor mismanagement. IE, the son
would squander the fortune of his father.

Rich people who have manage their wealth properly should deserve to keep it.
It's not like the companies that they invest in are going to last forever.

~~~
beoba
Yes, their deftness at not being idiots with their money should be rewarded
indefinitely, since it is such a huge contribution to our society.

(mostly unrelated: check out index funds, money management is only made to
look complicated to benefit brokers/advisors paid on commission)

~~~
kiba
I find it important to know that people can't take my income just because I am
rich or I am perceived to not be a valuable contributor to society.

I am not at all rich, but I am a rather spoiled college student funded by
taxpayer money in the form of scholarship. (though I actually work for it in
the form of grades...but it's still not my money)

Even so, I don't want loophole that can be used to take people's property away
from them.

Once you take property from the rich, you could conceivably begin to take away
property from the middle class, and then classes under that until all property
are owned by people in power.

The rule of law is a very important concept. It's something that I wouldn't
want to violate to right perceived unfairness.

~~~
beoba
You're mixing up property rights (what you already have) with income tax
brackets (what you're getting).

~~~
kiba
Money are your property. Therefore taxation(taking money by coercion) is a
form of property right violation.

The Constitution also have another loophole that allow the government to take
property for "just compensation".

Intellectual property right also violate property right.

People do indeed make exceptions. Some are big, and some are small. They just
think they are justified.

The more exceptions there are, the more people are at liberty to make new
exceptions for property right.

------
Aetius
What a load of socialist bullshit.

~~~
sleight42
If I had a down vote, your remark, sir, I would gladly send in to oblivion.

~~~
Aetius
You can downvote, your you can try to argue how -- even though my comment was
cursory -- I am incorrect. But I don't think you will, because you know I'm
right.

