A Possibly Unpopular Point of View

        Right off the top: I realize that, for a few, the mere fact that wealth exists is offensive. For many of the rest of us, the opinions are rather more nuanced, ranging from "no one should be wealthy", to "those who are wealthy are all despicable and got their wealth by nefarious means."  I differentiate with a little more reasoned judgement, and here's why. "Mr. Sam" Walton became wealthy as a merchandiser. I recall going into early Walmart stores and seeing "made in America" signs beside stacks of merchandise. Was Mr.Sam a bad man? no. Was he unscrupulous? Not that anyone has ever even implied.

        But, by 1985, he was the wealthiest man in America. He didn't do it by continuing sales of "made in America", but by selling products made elsewhere with cheaper labor at lower prices which Americans, many of them lower income, flocked to buy. He was a shrewd businessman who no one ever characterized as criminal or unscrupulous. When he died his children were the recipients of most of his billions of dollars in assets, and today continue "legally" shielding much of their enormous annual profits from taxes while, in person, doing relatively little in terns of "work," instead being paid Board members of banks, or working for the family foundation which tax shelters more wealth in the form of art and museums, written off as nontaxable.  The collective Walton fortune, which none of the heirs worked to amass, is more than Amazon's Jeff Bezon has earned to date    

         I have yet to hear anyone slander Mr Sam, who used the economic tools he was given,  added motivation and brains and prospered. On the other hand, slandering the rich has since become a major indoor sport. Sadly, there seems to be little effort to differentiate the fair from the foul. By foul I would include several Walton heirs ($200 billion given to them with no effort to earn any of it),  Donald Trump (started with almost half a billion in untaxed money from his father, slum lord Fred Trump), Trump's spawn, George W and H.W. Bush, Paris Hilton, etc. who had wealth simply as a consequence of birth, not by dint of their own efforts. Sadly, it has become fashionable of late to lump these individuals with Americans who, starting from humble beginnings and using essentially their brains and motivation became innovators and  became wealthy as a consequence.  

        Of these, Jeff Bezos, of Amazon is easily the favorite target. One supposes it's because he's also the wealthiest. Not because of inheritance or a "leg up"  from benefactors, but because he worked hard in school, got a scholarship which was the only way he got to Princeton, and innovated in the newly opened market of on line marketing. While at Princeton, he also became president of the university's Students for the Exploration and Development of Space chapter,  graduating with a GPA of 4.2, and a double major in electrical engineering and computer science. In some ways Jeff Bezos is the internet Sam Walton. Amazon has generated great wealth for Bezos due to the appreciation of his own Amazon stock, and generated a lot of hostility even though he has spent billions on charity and spends $1 billion annually on research in space exploration (Blue Horizon) which benefits us because we don't have to pay NASA to do it. 

       What follows is my response to a recent Facebook post defaming Bezos for being what he is, an honest, innovative entrepreneur operating within the letter of the law as it exists today. Both the writer and myself are retired and comfortable, primarily because like Bezos,  we used our motivation and resources legally to achieve it.

        I'm really tired of persons maligning others who, like most of us, live within the law, use resources available to all of us, and yet are pilloried by those who have been less successful or had other priorities. I understand the feeling that there is too much money concentrated in too few hands. So, I suppose, did Robin Hood and Jesse James. However, in many cases this is the result of being smarter, more driven, or other innate things which we simply can’t distribute like food stamps.

        In the case of the “Robber Barons” of the late 19^th century it ranged from innovation and hard work (Andrew Carnegie) to monopoly and market manipulation (John D. Rockefeller), now illegal.  If we don't like the profit Amazon or Microsoft, or Berkshire Hathaway legally makes, that isn't on Jeff Bezos, or Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett; it's largely (and primarily) on the tax system as it is now. If we don't like off-shore basing as a tax dodge, change that as well. In some cases it’s the passing on of great wealth to those who have done nothing to deserve it.

        Blaming anyone for legally and openly using tools equally available to them and to everyone to produce income is counter intuitive. Change the tools, if we must (and we should), but unless the entire world functions under a uniform tax and wage code it probably ain't gonna happen. One individual stated that a $15 hourly wage wasn’t a living wage. In truth, for two earners, $15 hourly equates to $60k annually. that's double the current two person poverty level and way above food stamp and Medicaid eligibility. It just isn’t all much that in Seattle or San Francisco. In the vast majority of the nation yes, $15/hr, as a beginning, lifts them out of poverty.

        As regards healthcare, Amazon's efforts to provide non-profit healthcare plans have the "for profit" healthcare industry concerned to the point of potential lawsuits. Again, my issue is that, if given the same tools and materials, (a brain and the motivation to use it, not talking about inherited wealth by trust fund babies) we both build houses and mine is "nicer " than yours, perhaps, as The Bard said, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

        Both of us (referring to a friend’s post on the subject), you and I, took advantage of opportunities open to most of us at the time. Both of us are now comfortably retired, reaping the benefits of those efforts because we worked hard and honestly. We weren’t lucky or the beneficiaries of a family fortune. Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. weren't, either, neither were Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. (funny how no one bashed billionaire Jobs, huh?)

       Donald Trump rose on illegally untaxed family money (NYT estimated $480 mil!). Bush 41 and 43 were trust funders as well, in fact much of the Bush fortune stemmed from opium trade. The Kennedies got rich (initially) on bootleg liquor.

       I strongly believe in a well-regulated market economy. I also agree that some things, such as power, water, mineral wealth should benefit the population as a whole on a non-profit, or at least well-regulated allowable profit basis, like most electrical power producers currently operate under. That said, looking at the UK and its retreat from broad government ownership and high levels of state support for those who choose not to work, is problematic for me. That goes to what one's work ethic is, and that definition goes all the way back to Elizabethan times and the differences between "deserving " and "undeserving" poor.

       I have absolutely no idea, regarding how to cope with those who simply choose not to work yet are physically and mentally healthy. It has been an eternal problem, not a recent one. Seattle is a perfect example. While politicians rail at profits of large tech companies based in or near the city while bemoaning the homeless problem, that isn't really the, problem. The problem is individuals who, for whatever reason insist on being in the city without the means to live there or are mentally incapable of functioning in modern society. These are two different issues.

         There was a time when many of the under-                 motivated or less capable lived off the land and not in urban centers, those days are gone to a significant degree, but here in Florida, we still have those who choose to live in poverty in the Ocala national forest. For some of these their current situation reflects poor choices made at a time when those choices mattered, such as when offered a free public education.  Why? Who knows? Some has to do with familial attitudes toward education and what in some cases almost seems “generational undermotivation.” I spent 20 years in public education and observed it to some degree.

        On the other hand, we recently watched a woman in downtown Seattle, somewhere in her 30s, standing and yelling unintelligibly at our hotel building. I simply don’t have any idea regarding how we even begin to deal with that unless we massively "warehouse" these folks. Throwing money at the mentally ill (as in the “guaranteed minimum income”) would be useless unless that went to underwrite institutional care of some sort. 

        I'm fine with Corporations paying more taxes, and/or reducing profits by paying higher wages and better benefits. As an example, look at marginal tax levels and percentages in the 1960s. When Reagan was elected, the top rate was 70%. He lowered it to 50% (instituting a burgeoning deficit and recession) and then it later dropped to 30%. Of course, paying much of this is avoidable if "salary" as such is nominal and other profits, especially capital gains, are undertaxed. A large issue is that as capital gains, once (1978) taxed at 40%, are now taxed at a paltry 15% (or less depending upon income) there will be the inequity of those born with it, keeping it, regardless of value to society. Again, POTUS as a case in point. But, I truly don't know how one can expect to keep domestic dollars here if off-shore alternatives exist and they surely will.

        A reasonable federal minimum wage is a good start. Regarding the  statement that $15 hourly isn't a living wage, that is so geographically dependent as to be meaningless. In Western Maryland, or Missoula Montana where a decent 1 bedroom apartment rents at around $725, a single individual with a $15 hourly job (2400 monthly) can live in decent conditions as long as the employer provides reasonable health care options. In Eastern Kentucky it’s even cheaper. And, by the way, health care costs are, or should be, a much, much greater concern nationally than individual fortunes.

       Finally, another individual, who wrote on this issue some weeks ago, lambasted Jeff Bezos because of the “ridiculous” price of Amazon stock, as if anything but market factors had anything to do with it. It seemed as if she thinks CEOs “set” stock prices. In truth, Mutual funds hold more Amazon stock than Bezos does. Amazon opened (IPO price) at $18 per share. Through legally meeting customer needs, and only that, in a competitive retail arena, it now trades at $2354.50 as of yesterday.(and it's split three times) Nobody’s “fault.”

        If we think that’s “too much” then we should tax the profits (capital gains) on the sales of it as “income” and at a higher rate, instead of smearing an individual and honest businessman. If your reason is that you think he should give more away, tell the Walton clan or the Trumps. Even better, wait until he retires and see what he does with it.