Oxfam, a global confederation of charitable organizations, just released a report demanding that billionaires be abolished. The report, Survival of the Richest: How We Must Tax the Super-Rich Now to Fight Inequality, states that:
Oxfam correctly identifies source of much of this wealth:
The U.S. government, for example, responded to both the Great Recession and COVID by increasing the nation’s money supply. As a result, between the beginning of 2009 and today, the average home price has more than doubled. During those same years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tripled in value. Thus, asset inflation has increased homeowners’ and investors’ “paper wealth,” widening the disparity between the country’s rich and poor.
Oxfam’s solution to the gap created by government monetary policy is for governments to aggressively confiscate wealth through draconian taxation, including increased capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, taxes on unrealized capital gains, and higher property and inheritance taxes. To keep the rich from escaping, Oxfam recommends granting additional powers to national revenue agencies and strengthening international government-to-government data sharing mechanisms.
In one of the report’s two forewords, José Antonio Ocampo, Colombia’s Minister of Finance and Public Credit, makes clear that the goal isn’t just to reduce inequality by making the rich poorer:
Minister Ocampo’s faith in the efficacy of government to ensure good and prevent bad is touching, but hardly realistic. Far more likely, political leaders will use the funds to line their pockets and those of their allies, further cementing themselves in power. Meanwhile, shifting resources to government and away from the private, productive sector, is likely to make the average individual – not just the rich – much poorer.
Yes, Jeff Bezos is a multi-billionaire, but most of his wealth is in the form of Amazon stock. Bezos owns only an insignificant fraction of the nation’s physical wealth (factories, machinery, offices, houses, cars, aircraft, computers, TVs, microwaves, dishwashers, washing machines, and so on and on) and an even smaller share of its human capital (knowledge, experience, skills, values). Confiscating his wealth would force him to sell his shares, tanking the value of Amazon stock and causing much, if not most, of his “wealth” to vanish.
While a worldwide collapse of market share prices might make Oxfam happy, it would starve whole industries of resources leading to worldwide depression. Great for equality, but terrible for human flourishing.
Richard Fulmer worked as a mechanical engineer and a systems analyst in industry. He is now retired and does free-lance writing. He has published some fifty articles and book reviews in free market magazines and blogs. With Robert L. Bradley Jr., Richard wrote the book, Energy: The Master Resource.
READER COMMENTS
David Seltzer
Feb 22 2023 at 4:49pm
The autocratic deep thinkers at Oxfam fail to understand that confiscating wealth and forcing billionaires or anyone else to become subjects of some amorphous global cabal will be done at their own peril. Since when are charitable organizations endowed with confiscatory power? I’m not duty bound to provide for anyone. That does not mean I, as a free individual, won’t be voluntarily charitable.
Monte
Feb 22 2023 at 5:32pm
These are “the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind”, to borrow from the movie, Young Frankenstein. I can think of no more diabolical way to extinguish the entrepreneurial spirit of a free society than to make distribution of wealth an organizing principle of it, rendering meaningless the concept of private property and individual rights.
This from OxFam America CEO Abby Maxman:
In other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
john hare
Feb 22 2023 at 5:54pm
The main problem being that need rewarded becomes need infinite.
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 22 2023 at 6:30pm
Here’s a catchy slogan from the Oxfam report:
In one sense, Oxfam is correct. More than a few wealthy individuals gained their nominal billionaire status through the U.S. government’s spending policies – or at least through the Federal Reserve’s policy of papering over federal debt by, in effect, printing money. In 1900, for example, John D. Rockefeller was worth an estimated $200 million. That comes to just over $6 billion in today’s inflated currency. Given time, the Fed may well make us all billionaires (just ask the many former trillionaires in Zimbabwe).
James W Oliver
Feb 23 2023 at 4:35pm
If you tax Jeff Bezos more and give the money to US citizens in the bottom 10% by earnings, who then consume more goods and services, who will consume less goods and services? I doubt that the answer would be Jeff Bezos. So it seems to be an effort to lower some numbers in some databases.
john hare
Feb 23 2023 at 5:41pm
And which is going to invest in the future? An unfortunate percentage of people are in the bottom 10% because they eat all their seed corn, often the fermented variety.
I would be more on board if there were a way to distinguish between the ones that will use it to move ahead and those that drink their rent money. Helping the motivated is uplifting, subsidizing bad behavior is depressing.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Feb 28 2023 at 1:22pm
I’d prefer to tax the consumption of Mr Bezos among others to reduce the federal deficit and free up resources for private investment.
Jim Glass
Feb 23 2023 at 9:06pm
Since the worst housing price crash in history house prices have risen? And since taking the huge hit of the Great Recession, the stock market has gone up? Because of (reckless?) money creation? Only?
Well, all that money creation got the Case-Shiller home price index all the way back up to its nominal pre-crash high in a mere 10 years — and overall since 2009 it’s increased 3% a year above inflation (half that rate since before the crash.). Meanwhile the S&P 500 has risen since 2009 at the same 12% average rate it rose from 1957-2021. And inflation 2009-2020 was less than the Fed’s target 2%. None of which makes it look like any money creation fires were raging before the Covid interventions.
So why more billionaires today? Maybe it’s because in the new Internet World businesses can reach vast world-wide markets immediately and obtain multi-billion dollar valuations upon start up, while it used to take firms 20 years of solid growth. Uber versus WalMart, Facebook & TikTok and all those versus GM. Tech kids in their 20s versus Warren Buffett. The same reason why baseball players today have $300+ million contracts while Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams topped out at $100k ($1 million today’s money). Uber, Facebook, Google and Mike Trout’s $426 million contract didn’t arise because of monetary policy.
But let’s not write off monetary policy. If Oxfam wants to contract the billionaire list and rich-poor gap they should forget all the inefficient messy political & taxation hoopla and get right to the point: Engineer another Great Depression. That’d do it. Proven by test. And the right monetary policy could do that.
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 23 2023 at 11:05pm
Between the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2020, M2 nearly doubled:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
Where did all that money go?
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Feb 28 2023 at 1:27pm
At lease as far back as when I was in graduate school, it was understood that the demand for money is more complicated than a constant “velocity.” That why the Fed has monthly meetings to adjust its policy instruments to hit its (flexible) inflation target as well as possible.
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 23 2023 at 11:16pm
According to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz (“A Monetary History of the United States”) M2 increased by about 50% between 1921 and 1929, yet consumer prices remained relatively stable. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by over 300%.
Jim Glass
Feb 23 2023 at 9:50pm
Back in the 1990s the kind of economic inequality that can really hurt society — by quintile and decile, groups who actually have to meet and deal with each other — was the big concern of the then-liberals and progressives. I still have the books they wrote on my shelves to document the fact. Then an interesting thing happened…
Research into the drivers of this inequality started producing results. And the results said the drivers were: People at the top getting the most education, working the longest hours, marrying people like themselves (two-income high-earning families) and raising kids like themselves who did the same, repeat and compound.
And, OMG!, these were the very same ‘top quintile’ people were liberal Democratic voters in places like NYC, Massachusetts, California, etc. Which put the “anti-inequality” politicians and reformers in the awkward position of looking at their own constituents and saying “You are the problem! You are too educated, and work too hard, and marry well-educated people like yourselves, and don’t divorce…”
One can imagine how that didn’t help much in collecting campaign contributions. So all the concern promptly switched from being over the top 20% and top 10% to over the top 1% and now billionaires. Because even the top 10% can look at the top 1%, and top 1% can look at billionaires, and say “You are the problem, you are the ones who are too damn greedy rich unfairly exploiting others…” And so it remains.
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 24 2023 at 3:13pm
According to Oxfam’s report, taxing the rich polls well:
Walter Boggs
Feb 24 2023 at 5:35pm
We are to take it on faith that having fewer billionaires would benefit the world. Oxfam doesn’t offer any evidence for that, as far as I can see.
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 24 2023 at 7:19pm
Oxfam did provide a brief explanation of why billionaires are bad:
John R. Samborski
Feb 25 2023 at 7:49am
Search for “Virginia Postrel Herceptin Ron Perelman”. You will find a description of how Ron Perelman, a billionaire, helped fund the research that led to the discovery of Herceptin, which can cure many kinds of breast cancer.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Feb 25 2023 at 6:11pm
It would not raise as much money as alternatives such as a progressive consumption tax.
Richard W Fulmer
Feb 26 2023 at 5:15pm
The point isn’t to raise money, it’s to eliminate billionaires.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Feb 28 2023 at 1:31pm
Not my point. 🙂 I’m interested in rapid inclusive growth and that requires shifting more resoures from consumption to investment.
Comments are closed.