The 99% Owe “A Debt of Gratitude” to the 1%: Harry Binswanger

[merjet]

Link.

There was a link to this on the Yahoo Finance home page. The article includes a link to Binswanger's article in Forbes. Lot of exposure.

[Guyau]

Many good points from Dr. Binswanger. Like Miss Rand he is mistaken to think that the formation of capital and the production of goods and services is made possible without savings and intelligent labor (and entrepreneurial decisions on location to live and education to pursue) by well over 50% percent of the population. The 1% are rightly rewarded already by their earnings. They do not deserve vilification and a higher tax rate, but they do not deserve special commendation over all the others who make our economic well-being possible, and they do not deserve a lower tax rate than other earners.

[PDS]

This is downright goofy. The top 1% make north of 370k per year.

Assuming a tax structure, there is no need for a "symbolic gesture" to people in the top 1% of wage earners. Per the Randian argument, they have already been paid, both literally and symbolically.

I thought this was going to be a classic example of Objectivist hyperbole toward a point, but then again, looking at the video, Binswanger seems to believe what he is saying. Goofy.

[merjet]

There are probably a few James Taggart types and unproductive heirs in that top 1%, too.

[PDS]

There are probably a few James Taggart types and unproductive heirs in that top 1%, too.

Which is why it makes little sense to place for society (as opposed to individuals) to make normative judgments--one way or another--on somebody because of the amount of income they make, assuming they make such income lawfully.

My wife is an underpaid Phd professor whose students adore her. She makes far less than 10% of the 1% threshold I mentioned above, whereas I am one of the dreaded 1% oppressors who smokes cigars made of $100 bills.

"Society" owes us neither of us anything--not a symbolic gesture, not a pat on the back, and not surely not an exemption from the taxes paid by everybody else.

[caroljane]

I hope and trust that she is not an adjunct professor, they are getting the ivory shaft as the sad story of Margaret Mary V. recently shows.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are probably a few James Taggart types and unproductive heirs in that top 1%, too.

Merlin,

And how about plain old garden variety crony capitalists and their government pals?

I think the 99 to 1 percent division is bogus if we are talking about true market values--or even social attitudes.

Michael

[merjet]

There are probably a few James Taggart types and unproductive heirs in that top 1%, too.

Merlin,

And how about plain old garden variety crony capitalists and their government pals?

"James Taggart types" meant them, more or less.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think the way the corporate economy has evolved in the United States is such that there are far to many "successful businessmen" who are using the system as a grand gambling casino. Please do not misunderstand me. If people wish to gamble their own money that is their right. However gambling produces very little new and is mostly a zero sum exercise which moves the money from from bucket to another and produces very little new technology and very little new capital for genuine economic growth.

But there is genuine economic growth in the system. There is new technology being invented. However the people who are doing the inventing and the innovating are not the ones making the mammoth corporate salaries by and large. My guess is that the innovation that is keeping our screwed up system alive and moving is being done by people in the so-call 99 percent.

Bottom line: The real bringers and makers are not being compensated anywhere near the value they are creating and the ones with the very large paychecks and luxurious perks and mostly not doing the innovating. We have to find a way of remedying this misalignment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Many good points from Dr. Binswanger. Like Miss Rand he is mistaken to think that the formation of capital and the production of goods and services is made possible without savings and intelligent labor (and entrepreneurial decisions on location to live and education to pursue) by well over 50% percent of the population. The 1% are rightly rewarded already by their earnings. They do not deserve vilification and a higher tax rate, but they do not deserve special commendation over all the others who make our economic well-being possible, and they do not deserve a lower tax rate than other earners.

It's not contradicting you to say that everybody taxed deserves a lower tax rate.

--Brant

equivalent tax rates cut both ways, but consumption taxes hit the poorest hardest

[Brant Gaede]

Link.

There was a link to this on the Yahoo Finance home page. The article includes a link to Binswanger's article in Forbes. Lot of exposure.

I tried to watch the video, but after 30 seconds of HB I couldn't stand the stupidity.

--Brant

another ARI generated smear via the misuse of Ayn Rand's reputation and name because of the immorally named institute--she sure got that right in her lifetime: seems Leonard forgot that because if she said it (don't do it!) it's Objectivism so he shouldn't have named it that but--but he's her "intellectual heir"--money and prestige breeds hypocrisy and it's always been about power over the philosophy as it was for her too: she deserves it while we don't--Binswanger is an intellectual pimp (and public figure, albeit trite) while Peikoff has/had some real substance

[Brant Gaede]

There are probably a few James Taggart types and unproductive heirs in that top 1%, too.

Which is why it makes little sense to place for society (as opposed to individuals) to make normative judgments--one way or another--on somebody because of the amount of income they make, assuming they make such income lawfully.

My wife is an underpaid Phd professor whose students adore her. She makes far less than 10% of the 1% threshold I mentioned above, whereas I am one of the dreaded 1% oppressors who smokes cigars made of $100 bills.

"Society" owes us neither of us anything--not a symbolic gesture, not a pat on the back, and not surely not an exemption from the taxes paid by everybody else.

Are you happy to pay your taxes? Are they just? Just asking. Just suggesting the bigger picture.

--Brant

really wondering

[PDS]

There are probably a few James Taggart types and unproductive heirs in that top 1%, too.

Which is why it makes little sense to place for society (as opposed to individuals) to make normative judgments--one way or another--on somebody because of the amount of income they make, assuming they make such income lawfully.

My wife is an underpaid Phd professor whose students adore her. She makes far less than 10% of the 1% threshold I mentioned above, whereas I am one of the dreaded 1% oppressors who smokes cigars made of $100 bills.

"Society" owes us neither of us anything--not a symbolic gesture, not a pat on the back, and not surely not an exemption from the taxes paid by everybody else.

Are you happy to pay your taxes? Are they just? Just asking. Just suggesting the bigger picture.

--Brant

really wondering

No, not happy at all and no, they are not just.

By way of example, my sister (roughly my age) makes maybe 5% of what I do annually, and she pays almost no taxes. I pay close to half of every dollar in taxes when all is said and done. Makes no sense to me. I could swear we had the same upbringing, the same challenges of living with alcoholic parents, and the same K-12 schooling, but she chose not to go to college/grad school, etc. She chose to party, and I chose essentially the opposite. She is a wonderful, happy person, by the way.

I work 7 days a week more often than not, and she takes her full weekend to enjoy life, no matter what. I am not knocking her or asking for a purple heart for myself--just stating facts. She would not dispute these facts.

To the extent taxes are a form of punishment (and they are, by and large), I am being punished for, frankly, having tried harder than she did in the past, having suffered to reach a level of professional competence over the last 25 years, and working harder than she does in the present. If somebody could explain to me why such tax outcomes aren't absurd, I would love to hear that explanation.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, she does pay SS taxes. I'd bet you pay more than 50% if you throw in all the taxes you pay.

--Brant

if your sister can take care of herself and live an independent life and is happy and is not envious of you, that would give you a lot to be grateful for, especially if you are not envious of her(!)

[caroljane]

Higher education is crumbling everywhere in NA, except for pro-track disciplines in science, medicine and law. Maybe this is a necessary trend.

It is ridiculous that I should earn more than someone with a higher degree, who certainly works harder than me, in roughly the same field of education. (And I don't earn much, definitely a 99 percenter|). I was talking to a PhD who was offered a fairly prestigious gig at the University of Toronto. Costing it out, he couldn't afford to take it.

Maybe we are reverting to the medieval mode where scholars were always poor and ragged unless they had rich families or patrons.

[PDS]

Well, she does pay SS taxes. I'd bet you pay more than 50% if you throw in all the taxes you pay.

--Brant

if your sister can take care of herself and live an independent life and is happy and is not envious of you, that would give you a lot to be grateful for, especially if you are not envious of her(!)

Brant:

I couldn't agree more, and we are closer today as siblings in our early 50's then we have ever been.

This approaches what Rand meant when she said there is no conflict of interest among free brothers and sisters, no?

[Brant Gaede]

Well, she does pay SS taxes. I'd bet you pay more than 50% if you throw in all the taxes you pay.

--Brant

if your sister can take care of herself and live an independent life and is happy and is not envious of you, that would give you a lot to be grateful for, especially if you are not envious of her(!)

Brant:

I couldn't agree more, and we are closer today as siblings in our early 50's then we have ever been.

This approaches what Rand meant when she said there is no conflict of interest among free brothers and sisters, no?

Close enough for government work.

--Brant

the irony, oh, the irony!

[merjet]

More Binswanger with Blodget. Prima facie Blodget fabricates. At least in the video Binswanger does not say "CEOs deserve all the credit."

[PDS]

I think the way the corporate economy has evolved in the United States is such that there are far to many "successful businessmen" who are using the system as a grand gambling casino. Please do not misunderstand me. If people wish to gamble their own money that is their right. However gambling produces very little new and is mostly a zero sum exercise which moves the money from from bucket to another and produces very little new technology and very little new capital for genuine economic growth.

But there is genuine economic growth in the system. There is new technology being invented. However the people who are doing the inventing and the innovating are not the ones making the mammoth corporate salaries by and large. My guess is that the innovation that is keeping our screwed up system alive and moving is being done by people in the so-call 99 percent.

Bottom line: The real bringers and makers are not being compensated anywhere near the value they are creating and the ones with the very large paychecks and luxurious perks and mostly not doing the innovating. We have to find a way of remedying this misalignment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"We have to find a way of remedying this misalignment."

Well said, Mr. Mouch.

I say we form a "blue ribbon" panel of people who will figure out what the "bringers and makers" are truly worth.

Let's start with lawyers. It sure seems like my hourly rate is too low. I am hoping this panel can start with my firm and impose an hourly rate on my clients much higher than I currently charge them. I also firmly believe I should be making more money than some of my competitors, so let's hope the panel considers me a "bringer" or a "maker".

Better yet, I would like to be on this panel!

[merjet]

How much pay does a CEO deserve? There are very different opinions about that regarding the CEO of Oracle (link). Oracle has 120,000 full-time employees. Mr. Ellison owns about 24% of the stock, and outside investors about 62%.

[PDS]

How much pay does a CEO deserve? There are very different opinions about that regarding the CEO of Oracle (link). Oracle has 120,000 full-time employees. Mr. Ellison owns about 24% of the stock, and outside investors about 62%.

Merlin: I assume your question is rhetorical. Of course there are different opinions on this subject, since so very few people actually know what they are talking about on the subject.

What the Oracle CEO makes is literally none of our business. It is between him and the Oracle shareholders.

[merjet]

There is new technology being invented. However the people who are doing the inventing and the innovating are not the ones making the mammoth corporate salaries by and large. My guess is that the innovation that is keeping our screwed up system alive and moving is being done by people in the so-call 99 percent.

Inventing new technology is part, but not all, of entrepreneurship. Part is marketing, which may be innovative. Consider the history of barb wire here. Mr. Ellwood did not invent the barb wire that made him rich, but he foresaw the usefulness of Mr. Glidden's invention and bought a 50% interest in it. Also, John Warne Gates made a huge amount of money as an innovative salesman (see the final paragraph).

[merjet]

Merlin: I assume your question is rhetorical. Of course there are different opinions on this subject, since so very few people actually know what they are talking about on the subject.

What the Oracle CEO makes is literally none of our business. It is between him and the Oracle shareholders.

Yes, yes. Yes for those who own no Oracle stock. Yes. I was not suggesting any sort of government solution to the controversy.

[PDS]

Merlin: I assume your question is rhetorical. Of course there are different opinions on this subject, since so very few people actually know what they are talking about on the subject.

What the Oracle CEO makes is literally none of our business. It is between him and the Oracle shareholders.

Yes, yes. Yes for those who own no Oracle stock. Yes. I was not suggesting any sort of government solution to the controversy.

Robert Hessen addressed this subject admirably from an Objectivist perspective way back in the day.

[Samson Corwell]

Way to grovel, Binswanger.