http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswange...-back-to-the-1/

 

Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%

 

It’s time to gore another collectivist sacred cow. This time it’s the popular idea that the successful are obliged to “give back to the community.” That oft-heard claim assumes that the wealth of high-earners is taken away from “the community.” And beneath that lies the perverted Marxist notion that wealth is accumulated by “exploiting” people, not by creating value–as if Henry Ford was not necessary for Fords to roll off the (non-existent) assembly lines and Steve Jobs was not necessary for iPhones and iPads to spring into existence.

 

Let’s begin by stripping away the collectivism. “The community” never gave anyone anything. The “community,” the “society,” the “nation” is just a number of interacting individuals, not a mystical entity floating in a cloud above them. And when some individual person–a parent, a teacher, a customer–”gives” something to someone else, it is not an act of charity, but a trade for value received in return.

 

It was from love – not charity–that your mother fed you, bought clothes for you, paid for your education, gave you presents on your birthday. It was for value received that your teachers worked day in and day out to instruct you. In commercial transactions, customers buy a product not to provide alms to the business, but because they want the product or service–want it for their own personal benefit and enjoyment. And most of the time they get it, which is why they choose to continue patronizing the same businesses.

 

All proper human interactions are win-win; that’s why the parties decide to engage in them. It’s not the Henry Fords and Steve Jobs who exploit people. It’s the Al Capones and Bernie Madoffs. Voluntary trade, without force or fraud, is the exchange of value for value, to mutual benefit. In trade, both parties gain.

 

Each particular individual in the community who contributed to a man’s rise to wealth was paid at the time–either materially or, as in the case of parents and friends, spiritually. There is no debt to discharge. There is nothing to give back, because there was nothing taken away.

 

Well, maybe there is–in the other direction. The shoe is on the other foot. It is “the community” that should give back to the wealth-creators. It turns out that the 99% get far more benefit from the 1% than vice-versa. Ayn Rand developed the idea of “the pyramid of ability,” which John Galt sets forth in Atlas Shrugged:

 

When you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.

 

When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making . . .

 

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the ‘competition’ between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of ‘exploitation’ for which you have damned the strong.

 

For their enormous contributions to our standard of living, the high-earners should be thanked and publicly honored. We are in their debt.

 

Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

 

Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett. Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind. (Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created.)

 

Instead, we live in a culture where Goldman Sachs is smeared as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” That’s for the sin of successful investing, channeling savings to their most productive uses, instead of wasting them on government boondoggles like Solyndra and bridges to nowhere.

 

There is indeed a vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity: the Internal Revenue Service. And, at a deeper level, it is the monstrous perversion of justice that makes the IRS possible: an envy-ridden moral code that damns success, profit, and earning money in voluntary exchange.

 

An end must be put to the inhuman practice of draining the productive to subsidize the unproductive. An end must be put to the primordial notion that one’s life belongs to the tribe, to “the community,” and that the superlative wealth-creators must do penance for the sin of creating value.

 

And Ayn Rand is just the lady who can do it.

 

I'm sure Craig agrees wholeheartedly. See what's currently the first comment for my opinion summarised better than I can be bothered to.

I would not say wholeheartedly but I do see where he is coming from

 

Wealth creators and people who took a risk setting up a business etc should be admired and revered but instead they are sneered at and treated with contempt by large section of society, profit and making money is considered a dirty word

 

This needs to change

 

Instead of worshipping the cast of TOWIE or Big Brother contestants people should worship the likes of Branson, Lord Sugar, Mike Ashley, Philip Green, the CEO of Ryan Air etc

 

The tax system needs to change too to reward success and to encourage enterprise and hard work, I would bring in a flat rate tax, the dustman paying the same level of tax as Lord Sugar might not be popular but nothing is stopping the dustman having an idea and making something of it like Lord Sugar did when he was selling car radios on a market stall.

All of this is on the assumption that the money made from private enterprise trickles down to the majority, which it unequivocally doesn't. People aren't rewarded for making profits, they're rewarded on their position in the company hierarchy and can be given millions in bonus money when they lose billions.

 

Since the money is never seen by the majority, a reward for private enterprise is a reward for selfishness.

The 1% can suck it.

I would not say wholeheartedly but I do see where he is coming from

 

Wealth creators and people who took a risk setting up a business etc should be admired and revered but instead they are sneered at and treated with contempt by large section of society, profit and making money is considered a dirty word

 

This needs to change

 

Instead of worshipping the cast of TOWIE or Big Brother contestants people should worship the likes of Branson, Lord Sugar, Mike Ashley, Philip Green, the CEO of Ryan Air etc

That's a very simplistic attitude. There is still a good deal of admiration for the likes of James Dyson and the late Steve jobs. Branson is less popular because he is a twat whose main talent is that of self-publicity. Mike Ashley has simply got lucky in buying and selling businesses. Has he ever had an original idea? Philip Green is rightly known more for his tax-dodging activities than anything else. As for Michael O'Leary, the mind boggles.

 

Besides, if you think entrepreneurs are not celebrated enough, what about scientists? They are frequently just dismissed as geeks yet British scientists have made an enormous contribution to modern life, many of them without ever making much money. After all, the main town square in Shrewsbury has a statue of the old colonialist Clive of India who wasn't even born there. The statue of Charles Darwin (who was born in Shrewsbury) has a less prominent position in the town.

All of this is on the assumption that the money made from private enterprise trickles down to the majority, which it unequivocally doesn't. People aren't rewarded for making profits, they're rewarded on their position in the company hierarchy and can be given millions in bonus money when they lose billions.

 

Since the money is never seen by the majority, a reward for private enterprise is a reward for selfishness.

 

The people I admire are those that create something from nothing, I have no time for CEO's of utility or train companies, just glorified bean counters but I have nothing but admiration for someone that creates a business out of nothing and takes risks to do it

That's a very simplistic attitude. There is still a good deal of admiration for the likes of James Dyson and the late Steve jobs. Branson is less popular because he is a twat whose main talent is that of self-publicity. Mike Ashley has simply got lucky in buying and selling businesses. Has he ever had an original idea? Philip Green is rightly known more for his tax-dodging activities than anything else. As for Michael O'Leary, the mind boggles.

 

Besides, if you think entrepreneurs are not celebrated enough, what about scientists? They are frequently just dismissed as geeks yet British scientists have made an enormous contribution to modern life, many of them without ever making much money. After all, the main town square in Shrewsbury has a statue of the old colonialist Clive of India who wasn't even born there. The statue of Charles Darwin (who was born in Shrewsbury) has a less prominent position in the town.

 

They might not be likeable individuals but they all started businesses from scratch and took risks or in the case of O'Leary took on a business that was dead on its feet and turned it into a giant, they deserve respect/admiration even if they dont need to be loved

 

The rich people I have no time for are people with inherited wealth, royals and the likes of Tamara Ecclestone and her sister who have a lifestyle beyond 99.9% of peoples wildest dreams but have never done a days work in their lives, I have no time for inherited wealth

100% INHERITANCE TAX NOW

(maybe)

They might not be likeable individuals but they all started businesses from scratch and took risks or in the case of O'Leary took on a business that was dead on its feet and turned it into a giant, they deserve respect/admiration even if they dont need to be loved

 

The rich people I have no time for are people with inherited wealth, royals and the likes of Tamara Ecclestone and her sister who have a lifestyle beyond 99.9% of peoples wildest dreams but have never done a days work in their lives, I have no time for inherited wealth

Which is one reason why it so easy to despise this government. As far as I am aware, the only one of the many millionaires in the Cabinet to have made their own money is Vince Cable. And, surprise, surprise, he is the only one of the millionaires to seem reasonably human.

Which is one reason why it so easy to despise this government. As far as I am aware, the only one of the many millionaires in the Cabinet to have made their own money is Vince Cable. And, surprise, surprise, he is the only one of the millionaires to seem reasonably human.

 

I quite like Cable

 

I disagree with much that he says but he is true to his beliefs and convictions even if it means going against his own party, he would be a far better leader than that smarmy prick Clegg who would say anything to get votes

 

Cable reminds me of a centre left version of my fave MP, David Davis

I quite like Cable

 

I disagree with much that he says but he is true to his beliefs and convictions even if it means going against his own party, he would be a far better leader than that smarmy prick Clegg who would say anything to get votes

 

Cable reminds me of a centre left version of my fave MP, David Davis

I agree with Davis on many civil liberties issues although he suddenly reverts to old-style Tory type when it comes to gay equality.

 

Vince Cable os probably the first Cabinet minister for many years to make it clear that he is uncomfortable with (or totally disagrees with) the views of many of his Cabinet colleagues. In a single party government that would be considered unacceptable and he would not have lasted long. However, I would expect a minister in a Coalition cabinet to be uneasy about some government policies and Cable deserves credit for saying so.

 

I still suspect that the next election will deliver another hung parliament and, possibly, another coalition. We need to get used to that idea.

The people I admire are those that create something from nothing, I have no time for CEO's of utility or train companies, just glorified bean counters but I have nothing but admiration for someone that creates a business out of nothing and takes risks to do it

In which case, none of what the article said should be of merit to you. I'm sure that the "glorified bean counters" account for the vast majority of the 1%.

I agree with Davis on many civil liberties issues although he suddenly reverts to old-style Tory type when it comes to gay equality.

 

Vince Cable os probably the first Cabinet minister for many years to make it clear that he is uncomfortable with (or totally disagrees with) the views of many of his Cabinet colleagues. In a single party government that would be considered unacceptable and he would not have lasted long. However, I would expect a minister in a Coalition cabinet to be uneasy about some government policies and Cable deserves credit for saying so.

 

I still suspect that the next election will deliver another hung parliament and, possibly, another coalition. We need to get used to that idea.

 

I thought Davis voted for gay marriage :unsure: maybe I am wrong though and certainly if he did vote against it I certainly disagree with his stance on that issue

 

You could well be right about another coalition, I hope not and am hoping and still expecting a tory majority of some sort

In which case, none of what the article said should be of merit to you. I'm sure that the "glorified bean counters" account for the vast majority of the 1%.

 

Yeah they probably do, in terms of wealth for me i have a sliding scale

 

1) Self made entrepreneurs

1= Surgeons/scientists

 

 

3) Executives

4) Sportsmen

 

 

 

5) Inherited wealth / politicians / royals

Why on earth are politicians in the same bracket as ROYALS? At least they did something.

And what about the sportsWOMEN?

No really though, I don't understand how you can go on about executives not doing anything and then put them ahead of people who have to push themselves to the limits of their abilities for a living. Except golfers, obviously.

Why on earth are politicians in the same bracket as ROYALS? At least they did something.

 

Politicians get everything for free on expenses near enough and largely got into politics by having the right connections so politicians didn't have to sweat and strive to get what they have earned, the consultancies and directorships they have too are largely due to being politicians

No really though, I don't understand how you can go on about executives not doing anything and then put them ahead of people who have to push themselves to the limits of their abilities for a living. Except golfers, obviously.

 

Rooney for example, £250k a week for 90 mins work a week and 2 hrs of training a day

 

That does not compare to me to a self made entrepreneur working 100 hrs a week as many do or the head of a utility managing 100,000 people

Edited September 19, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri