The usual objection to redistributive economic policies is that the wealthy have earned their wealth, and it is morally wrong to take away what someone has earned.
Well, not so much.
So much for the wealthy having "earned their money."
And the road to shared prosperity is precisely to attack the _unearned_ economic rents of the very wealthy, not the wealth they themselves have actually produced.
The Pay of Corporate Executives and Financial Professionals as Evidence of Rents in Top 1 Percent Incomes | Economic Policy Institute
I have no objection to Bill Gates being wealthy. I have a very strong objection to the Waltons stealing the productivity of their workers, and seeing their inherited super-wealth as somehow morally equivalent to Gates'.
I wouldn't want to base any decision like that on what someone "earned." That's such a difficult thing to determine. Are we supposed to re-evaluate contracts and decide whether employee A really earned his salary compared to employee B?
ReplyDeleteI think rather that the argument has to be based on what people own. IOW, it's wrong to take what one person owns and redistribute it to others. Unless, of course, there is some evidence of crime.
Also, one reason people are driven to get rich is to provide for their families. To the extent that you limit the ability to pass on money to heirs you diminish that incentive.