|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The left-right divide in America is partly tribal—red shirt vs. blue shirt—but also touches on fundamental beliefs about right and wrong.
The internet has given rise to a new billionaire class that focuses our attention on difference in wealth and income. The left and right debate how “private” private property should be: Do individuals have a right to earn what they can and keep the riches they accumulate or do the wealthy owe something to the larger community? How much and who should decide?
In their latest post, the Beacon’s Counterpoint columnists—liberal Rick Dollinger and conservative Geoff Rosenberger—tackle this issue.
GEOFF: Rick, as we are both cradle Catholics, it won’t surprise you that I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the Ten Commandments. The great thing about the Ten Commandments is that because they’re at least three millennia old, they predate pretty much every organized religion, Judaism and Hinduism aside. They’re succinct, easily understood, truly ecumenical and supposedly one of society’s foundational documents. But I’ll bet the vast majority of Americans, Beacon readers included, are unable to list all 10. And that’s concerning, because if a majority, or even a significant minority, of citizens don’t know the content of foundational documents—including documents like the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence—then how can those documents effectively form the basis for societal norms and behaviors?
Let’s zero in on the last of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” Your fellow Democrats seems to have either forgotten that one or assumed that because it comes at the end, it’s the least important. Because it seems like every time I hear a Democrat politician speak these days, they are spewing envy toward, and “coveting the goods” of, “the rich.”
For most of my adult life, I’ve listened to Democrat politicians complain that “the rich don’t pay their fair share” even though the top 1% of American income earners pay about 40% of the nation’s personal income tax). Witness Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent comment that “you can’t earn a billion dollars. … And so, you have to create a myth that since didn’t earn that, you have to create a myth of earning it.” Or President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” claim. I’m sure Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg will be fascinated to learn that they didn’t “build” the companies they founded or “earn” the benefits of having done so. California wants to start taxing wealth in addition to income. New York City Mayor Mamdani singled out Citadel CEO Ken Griffen’s luxury condo in a video promoting an excise tax on second homes in the City.
Isn’t stirring up resentment of “the rich” a blatant Tenth Commandment violation? What say you?
RICK: Geoff, you bring the Ten Commandments into a discussion of fiscal policy?
Neat, cool, innovative—just what I expected from my friend. A new challenge.
I could wax forever about the Commandments and probably will at some point, but I focus instead on your suggestion.
Is the argument to increase high-income-earner tax rates—a familiar Democratic Party argument—a form of “coveting” thy neighbors’ goods in violation of the Tenth Commandment?
Geoff, you are really stretching when you go back to a set of stone tablets, delivered to a pre-literate society 33 centuries ago, to critique an argument to reform—back to the good old days—America’s 21st century tax system.
Remember the 1950s—the period of dramatic economic expansion in America—when marginal tax rates were over 90 percent. America boomed, income inequality was lower than now. The middle class grew by leaps and bounds.
I was too young to know then, but did anyone then suggest that the tax system in place at a very high marginal rate violated the Tenth Commandment, while the middle class grew, the national highway system was developed, the country challenged racism, scientific discoveries flourished and our country protected the world under Pax America?
Was the government “coveting” others’ income as it tried to build—and did build—the greatest country in history?
Congress and country thought the tax system was fair then to finance America’s ascension into the role of a world leader.
The country had a $76 billion national debt in 1958. The annual budget deficit was $2.8 billion.
Now, in the new world of income taxation at a much lower rate, income inequality has exploded, the amalgamation of income and assets ends up in a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans, the deficit balloons and the middle class shrinks.
I must have missed the theology class when someone in the GOP changed the wording of the Tenth Commandment, dropping the word “not” and changing the word “covet” to “enhance.”
I know many a conservative and Republican who read the Tenth Commandment—binding our national government—that way now.
GEOFF: Rick, it’s not the tax system I object to. Well, I do have a lot of objections about it, but not in a Tenth Commandment context. Thirty years ago, even 20 years ago, the “tax the rich” mantra was primarily about generating revenue to fund government. But not today. Today, it appears to be less about revenue generation than it is about a core Democrat Party belief that the wealthy simply have too much money. Democrats resent Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Ken Griffen. They covet their wealth. Democrats’ goal isn’t balanced budgets. Their goal is economic “equality.” It bothers the hell out of them that those folks have that kind of wealth. Not inherited wealth, which is a different conversation we can certainly have, but entrepreneurially generated wealth.
I find it fascinating that Democrats seem to have no complaint about the wealth Hollywood actors and professional athletes acquire. I’m genuinely puzzled as to why that is. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Why do Democrats view business-generated wealth as illegitimate but deem athletic-generated wealth to be perfectly acceptable? Why are Democrats comfortable paying obscene ticket prices to fund eight-figure athlete salaries but resent paying Amazon’s founder for the next-day or even same-day deliveries they’ve come to enjoy? I don’t get it.
RICK: You got the wrong slant on a Democrat’s objection. We do not resent entrepreneurs or how much money they make. What we decry is the concentration of wealth among the very few, regardless of whether they are entrepreneurs, film stars, athletes or owners of resources. This is the same crusade launched by one of the GOP heroes of the last century—Teddy Roosevelt. Is he still a Republican hero for being a “progressive”? I suspect not.
Roosevelt crusaded against the trusts and the industrialists, who had amassed the economic power to bend Congress to their will and exploit the powerless in America. Roosevelt tapped into American fears that our democracy was being replaced by a feudal-like society, where the dukes, earls and lords of commerce hung around the king’s court, vassals all, paying tribute (like funding the “king’s inauguration expenses,” ballroom and “revenge-kitty”). These lords of the kingdom could, with abundant insider information and access, dictate the future, Roosevelt predicted.
Now, in the post-Citizen United world—where the Supreme Court said corporations are “people” (a notion based on the Railroad Commission Cases from 140 years ago—sorry, my career in law intrudes into this polemic)—and there is no control over how much the wealthy can pay to elected officials to direct government policy choices, TR’s progressive impulses boil back into public debate.
That’s the Democratic complaint—the political system is rigged to favor the wealthy few at the expense of the many. Let the entrepreneurs and others keep their money, which often flows to important philanthropic endeavors—think the Eastman Theatre, the Eastman Dental Clinic and the Golisano Children’s Hospital right here in Rochester. But prevent that wealth from having a dominating—no, make that “controlling”—impact of our political process.
We as Democrats do “covet” something important—our fair and reasonable “one person-one vote” democracy—and we want to prevent concentrated wealth in the hands of the few from destroying it and marching America into a form of feudalism which a bunch of liberal Democrats, sitting in Philadelphia, revolted against 250 years ago.
GEOFF: Rick, I’m glad you referenced George Eastman’s and Tom Golisano’s philanthropy. We often lose sight of that aspect of wealth creation—not just the wealth created by the founders themselves, but also the wealth they create for their investors. How many Nvidia millionaires do you guess are wandering around the country today? How many people do Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, Space X, Citadel, Meta and Google employ? Those jobs would not exist without the entrepreneurial endeavors of their founders.
Should Wegmans stop opening new stores simply because the company’s owners have “enough” money? If so, then how many new jobs won’t be created in the stores that will never be opened? How many warehouse or trucking jobs won’t be created to service those unopened stores? And how many communities will be worse off for not having the benefit of a Wegmans to shop at? I don’t resent or covet entrepreneurial success one bit. I welcome it—and hope to see many more such success stories in the years to come.
As for the political system being “rigged” by the wealthy, you spent time in Albany. How much power does NYSUT or SEIU wield there? Why is it more virtuous to spend your member’s dues money on political influence than it is to spend your own?
Americans used to celebrate success. Now Democrats seem to demonize it. Is every multi-millionaire or billionaire on the “Stairway to Heaven”? Probably not. But they sure aren’t all on the “Highway to Hell” either. Most do a ton of good with their wealth. Instead of resenting their success, why not work to emulate it? Go out and start a business. Make your own fortune. That’s the American Way!
Rick Dollinger is a retired Court of Claims judge and a former state senator who lives in Brighton. Geoff Rosenberger is retired co-founder of Clover Capital Management Inc.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
Interesting, but hyperfused take, on the meaning of “Thou shalt not covet….” I’d love to see a greater discussion of the role of “…coveting…” in the accumulation of great wealth instead of the current focus on some people’s reaction to the perceived unfairness of that accumulation.
Feel free to talk in biblical terms. But please explain how the love of wealth is not worship of a false god. The bible forbids adoration of the “…golden calf….” Was this reference totally metaphorical or does it talk to the recognition many years ago that gold represents wealth and power and the ability to command?
At what point does charging what the market might bear, become overcharging or coveting or even theft? Can there be excesses in the search for profit? Might not these excesses be driven by “…coveting…?” At what point point does marketing become lying? Are these excesses not forbidden?
And what about how organizational profits are divided between investors, managers and workers? What is fair? Are not increased profits to investors and higher compensation to managers achieved by underpayment to (i.e. theft from) employees and overcharging (i.e. theft from) customers. All forms of coveting?
Please explain?
I expect most can agree that the “…commandments…” were set forth as proscriptions towards achieving a working society, and maybe even a just society. Who knows? I do know that when many people perceive an outcome as fundamentally unfair, a problem has been identified.
I completely agree with Geoff here. It feels like there’s a lot of misplaced envy driving the current rhetoric against successful entrepreneurs. At the end of the day, these individuals create massive value for society—not just through the products, services, and jobs that make our lives better, but through the immense philanthropic work they do. When you look at the big picture, a huge portion of that wealth eventually cycles back into the community, whether through foundations or direct giving—look at the impact of the Eastman legacy or the Golisano Children’s Hospital right here in Rochester. Demonizing success is entirely counterproductive; that capital is a powerful engine for both economic growth and social good, and these individuals are building the future, not just hoarding wealth
While I appreciate the arguments from both sides, this does serve as an example of why we need to adhere to a strict consent of separation of state and church.
I wonder if the commandment not to covet would still apply if one person had nearly all of the wealth and resources in the world and everyone else was starving or dying of disease. Would churches tell people it is the will of the Creator and they must accept their place in the world without complaint?
I think that’s a hypothetical scenario that ignores how free market capitalism actually functions. In a truly free market, it is virtually impossible for one person to ‘have all the money in the world’ because the very nature of competition and innovation prevents total monopolization. Capitalism provides the mechanism for wealth to flow and circulate—as one person or company becomes successful, it creates opportunities for competitors to innovate, for workers to be hired, and for capital to be deployed in new directions.
If a single entity somehow gained that much control, they would likely have had to rely on government-granted favors or ‘crony’ protections to insulate themselves from the constant pressure of market competition. Without that outside interference, the market naturally drives resources to where they are needed most. Rather than one person hoarding everything while others suffer, free markets historically have been the single most effective engine for lifting people out of poverty, eradicating diseases through medical innovation, and raising the standard of living for everyone. True prosperity isn’t a zero-sum game; it’s about the growth that happens when individuals are free to build and trade
Historically incorrect. Capitalism evolves from feudalism during the age of exploration and the integration of forceable possession, colonization, and slave and subjugated labor. I commend Mr. Golisano and Mr. Wilmont’s contributions to medical care in our community. However, after Hoover, the President’s in my lifetime of both parties had a progressive income tax and many of the wealthy with their fortunes still contributed to greatly to society. This all changes with Reagan and a transfer of $70 trillion in wealth from the 90% to the richest 10% which. This trend increases daily. Adam Smith’s bible of capitalism made it clear that if much of this wealth was not distributed to the multitudes whose productivity produced it the majority of people would reject the so-called free market. As for free market competition we are not enforcing anti-trust laws unless one is an enemy of the current administration. See the media, food, big oil and investment firms buying everything from factories to apartments and homes. Large campaign contributions routinely result in dropping anti-trust, SEC, and IRS enforcement, not to mention pardons for large campaign contributions. Having so much concentrated wealth purchasing government and even the Supreme Court, as well as the media, was not how it was supposed to work. Free market competition was not supposed to mean labor competed globally for those who would do the labor the cheapest with the most risk to their safety.
Not particularly interested in a verbal fist fight over the applicability of one religion’s particular fixation on a folk tale about orders from on high magically carved in stone. After all, I agree with Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (approved by the US Senate and signed by Pres. John Adams) which states that, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion…”
Moses wandered down from Mt. Sinai with those stone tablets more than a millennium before Christ was born and Christianity was founded.
Difficult to affix a date to fairy tales.
While Rosenberger’s take on reality is, as always, hilarious, I would have like to have seen an atheist in there blowing the bottom out of the very concept of the claimed origin of the Ten Commandments , whichever of the three versions (Exodus 20:2–17, Deuteronomy 5:6–21, or Exodus 34:11–26) your two contestants want to twist to fit today’s reality. And I would REALLY like to have seen the discussion focus on how Red states and cities, etc. are forcing their views on the Ten Commandments into public schools, into public spaces, and into the public’s pocketbooks.
Thank you, Mr. Dollinger. Mr. Rosenberger never seems to get that the richest 10%, and especially the one percent has all the money. The exceedingly wealthy always wanted a flat tax instead of a progressive tax. Now they do not even want a flat tax. The most glaring example is the Social Security tax. The professional employee heads a household with two children and makes $184,000 per year; all subject to the SS/Medicare tax of 7.7%. The person that makes ten times that income, or $1.840,000 per year is paying about one and a half percent of income.
They scream when told they should pay the same percentage as workers on all income. Someone making less than forty thousand a year with a child pays the full SS/Medicare tax on all income. At the beginning of Covid there were about 400 billionaires and now about 800 billionaires. A crime against humanity. A wealth tax on billionaires would still leave them billionaires and super rich for generations, the generations that did not earn any of it, our aristocracy instead of a meritocracy. We haven’t even mentioned the multi- billion-dollar corporations that pay NO Federal income taxes, too numerous to list here. I was brought up in the same Faith. The Nazarene rarely mentions Moses Commandments; he is known for the Sermon on the Mount and condemning the rich. As Judge Dollinger I know you are aware that Supreme Court Judge Brandeis said, ” We may have democracy, or have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” More accurate than Nostradamus.
See https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/ran9/an2026-9.pdf from the Social Security Administration. It breaks down the percentage of income replaced by Social Security by income level. You’ll see that Social Security is a far better deal for lower income folks than it is for those with higher incomes.
Right away I know where Rosenberger stands when he refers to “Democrat Party” rather than “Democratic Party”. Renaming things to sound weird or bad is a silly Republican fetish.
When I read about, say, Amazon not paying their fair share, I wonder about the damage their trucks do to our roads and highways. People like me and my neighbors have to make that up without the fancy tax havens and accountants. I’m a proud Democrat and, while I don’t “covet” what some people have earned, I do resent those tax havens and bragging about how many ways they avoid paying what they should. I also resent that Citizens United gave them leeway to essentially buy politicians and outcomes that would further enrich them.
Dear Geoff. We aren’t talking about your average business owner here. We are talking about 900 or so billion to trillionaires who through their individual wealth control our every day lives by declaring unneeded wars, violating the rights of immigrants and lgbtq+ and people of color, bribe politicians and engage in blatant bribery and corruption at every level, control the process of everything we buy and eat daily, violate morals and ethics as if the only thing
On earth that is important is their own power and wealth. You and millions of other Americans would look foolish if you compared your wealth to theirs and yet you defend them as if you could ever be them (hint: you can’t).
No one is “demonizing success”. We are demonizing unbridled power and corruption. This has been enabled, encouraged and created by the Republican party , the heritage foundation and their project 2025 agenda. In a sane world these huge corporations and entities would have been broken up as the threats to our way of life they are. They don’t deserve more influence than anyone else despite their wealth. Their vote and influence should count the same as any other citizen. But they do not.
This country used to have both prosperity AND relatively fair taxing of wealthy individuals and corporations – but through Citizens United and the brazen corruption that ruling and a plethora of other Republican laws and corruption have created we have lost sight of all that. Now your vote is only as good as the money behind it – and they have all the money. Not just some of it.
Most of it. A greater percentage than in the history of our nation.
You “conservatives” are happy to cede control of our country to these megalomaniacs. The rest of us not so much. (Also calling you conservative is laughable – there is nothing conservative about the way Republicans spend money they don’t have).
Well, Elon Musk could have stopped working after co-founding and then cashing out of PayPal. He had more than enough money at that point to live comfortably for the rest of his life and could have retired. Of course, had he done that, there would be no Tesla, no Boring Company and no Space X. Nor would there have been all the jobs those companies created, nor the wealth that the other shareholders and investors in those companies have attained. Those investors wouldn’t have paid the capital gains taxes on the money they made in those companies. The charities they donated to with their profits would have had to do without all those donations. And of course, there would be no Starlink, which has massively assisted Ukraine in their defense against the Russians. The outcome of that conflict would likely look very different than it does today without Starlink. So, which scenario is worse? Elon having all that money or Elon quitting and heading to the beach after his first start-up?