Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans... David Cay Johnston

My comment on a review of, "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)" on Amazon by David Cay JohnstonEditted 2/2/08

Johnston analyzed where the dollars came from. If we use Steve Jobs as a model, I can admire his contribution to his wealth, but there is a limit. What did he do? What did he contribute? Did he have help? What was their reward? Does the janitor contribute to Apple's success? If Apple corporation financially stumbles, whose career is at greater risk the engineer, the janitor or Jobs?

I recognize the paradox of progress. A bank robber (or embezzler) can build a bigger monument than a janitor. The assets of a janitor will be limited to what he can earn through the largess of his employer. A bank robber can take advantage of someone else's labor and expand his assets beyond his own effort. So, if I wish to have that monument built (Apple Corp), then should I applaud Jobs because rather than a gun, he was a friendly embezzler?

I realize I cannot make a moral evaluation from every exchange of services, goods, and money. The bank robber, if he is nice, can do what I cannot. At the turn of the century, no income tax existed and workers did not think they got a fair share for their labors. As a result, labor unions were born to balance the exchange between business and workers. As I look at the world, it occurs to me that taxes are simply a tool for social equality. They do the same thing as the labor unions, but more broadly based.

Let me digress
  • Bank robber: someone who takes your cash at gun point and leaves nothing
  • Embezzler: someone who takes your cash without a gun and leaves nothing
  • Swindler: someone who uses your naivete or avarice to take your cash without a gun and leaves nothing
  • Stock broker: see swindler
  • An investor: someone who skips the middleman, see swindler
  • Pro athlete: a rung up from middle class, works directly for rich
  • Grocer: you (also known as someone who works his butt off and gets nothing)
  • Auto repair mechanic or home repairman: A reformed bank robber, no longer uses gun
  • Kid who works at MacDonalds: a tool
  • Owner of the MacDonalds: Buys tools, with enough tools, gets rich
  • Illegal immigrant: no gun, no cash, no tools, no home, no one on his side, and no future
  • Walmart: everyone can be a slumlord, hire foreign tools, they are invisible
  • Businessman: someone looking for a way to get enough tools to get rich
  • Successful businessman: cannot keep count of the tools he has, he is rich
  • Middle manager or scientist: no tools, but works for businessman, middle class
  • Tool: what businesses need to do the work, tools cannot cost more than they can produce
  • Politician: like a pro athlete, works for the rich (or may be rich) to keep populace in check without the entertainment value
  • Conservative: likes Walmart
  • Liberal: dislikes Walmart
  • Steve Jobs: has a lot of smart tools
  • Apple fanboy: referred to by Lincoln on fools, "some of the people all of the time" (you choose whether Abe meant M$ or Apple)
  • What did I miss?

I am in the middle of these commerce pyramids. I am neither at the top nor the bottom. I am thankful for the taxes I pay for I too have taxed those beneath me (vicariously). All I ask is that everyone else whose earnings come directly and indirectly from the labor of others would take that same charitable view. I don't want to be in the business of trying to determine whether wealth was obtained as a robber, an embezzler, a swindler, or a legitimate businessman. I just ask that if you recognize that your wealth came from the work of others. Taxes are the gentile device that society has to try to balance power and wealth.

For those who disagree, then I advocate abolishing taxes completely. Make the world a pay as you go Hobbesian world. I hope the person you have hire to guard your gold robs you. It seems a fitting end.

Regarding who pays the taxes? I am thinking of whose proportion is greater? This is a measure of balance, not of success. In a flat world, everyone would contribute equally. If a greater proportion is paid by the wealthy, then that shows how far out of balance the wealth has shifted. Had they not skimmed their way to the top, the less they would need to pay.