2014
In a recent editorial Paul Krugman in true distorted liberal fashion rails against the accumulation of wealth, especially inherited wealth. In doing so he selectively quotes Teddy Roosevelt and his call for an inheritance tax. Mr Krugman sees danger in wealth concentration. Better if Mr Krugman had focused on another section of the speech.
In the referenced 1910 speech Teddy Roosevelt quotes Abraham Lincoln:
“I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind.”
And again:
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.
“Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world.”
And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence:
“Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”
In other words there is a balance in all this. Great wealth has its responsibilities and can be used for good or evil, the use of great wealth sustains many portions of the economy.
If we want to diminish the influence of the wealthy on our policymakers, then we should consider limiting the ability of policymakers to fulfill those influences. Term limits is a place to start.
How can we or should we discount the good created by many of the wealthiest people? Is philanthropy also a dirty word? I find the notion that wealth should not be passed to future generations, but rather confiscated by government, abhorrent.
This discussion is typically in the context of millionaires and billionaires, but the money involved is irrelevant. Whether I have $200,000 or $200,000,000 to pass to my children is not the issue. My labor created the assets, taxes were paid and it’s use should be the prerogative of the individual, not the state.
Can anyone logically argue that great wealth is more productive for society when absorbed by government than when left in the economy even given there are those who are miserly in doing good with their wealth?;
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
One of your best posts so far. This should be published as a response to Krugman.
LikeLike