What If the Rich Really Gave Back as Obama Wants?

President Obama tells us that the rich should give back to society. He even knows many wealthy people who want to give back more. (I guess they can’t until their taxes are raised). We learn from him that the rich owe their success not to business acumen and risk taking but to public roads, schools, the courts, food stamps, disability payments, workplace regulation, and other government services. We even owe the first rumblings of the internet to DARPA, unfortunately the research arm of the military-industrial complex. (Or was it Al Gore?).  Obama feels it is only fair that the rich return what the government gave them. What business could survive without access by public road? Fair is fair, after all.

What would happen if we, like France’s socialist state, taxed away seventy five percent of earnings above one and a quarter million and  high-net-worth business executives with  $2.5 million in salary, dividends and rental property pay a marginal rate of 90.5 percent. At such rates, our rich would really be giving back to government what it is due, and perhaps more.  Fair is fair.

With so much “going back,” there is little reason to go forward. The “rich” should just cash in their chips, stop building their businesses or starting new ones, pay their high taxes, and live off their wealth, unless that is taxed away too. After all, the government can “invest” their money in Solyndras,  Volts, and entitlement programs. As Obama claims, government investment has higher returns than private investment.

If Steve Jobs had paid his fair share back to society after he made his first ten million, Apple today would today be a relatively small company worth less than a billion and employing a thousand or so. It would not be the world’s largest company in market cap, it would not employ 60,400 people worldwide, and we would not have the IPads, IPhones, Apps, and other innovative Jobs products, which improve the quality of lives and raise living standards. Apple shareholders would not hold shares worth a half trillion dollars.



go to forbes.com

How Krugman Would Ru(i)n Steve Jobs’ Apple

The Left considers Steve Jobs, the charismatic PC pioneer, a self-centered individualist, who did not to conform to elite etiquette. As Warren Buffet and Bill Gates gave away money with great fanfare, Jobs quietly devoted himself to creating value in Apple. He was conspicuously silent as Buffet recruited the super rich to argue for higher taxes. He told President Obama unwelcome truths (“Apple jobs are not coming back to America”).  He advocated school vouchers and he emphasized the importance of the family (oral history interview). He did not dash to DC to testify on the latest fad or navigate the elite cocktail party circuit. He had more important things to do.

Although Steve Jobs was a major donor to Democrat causes, his errant behavior did not sit well with the “progressive” political class. Now six months after his death at age 46, the attack on his legacy is in full swing, fueled by Apple Computer’s new status as the world’s richest corporation.

The Left’s standard bearer, Paul Krugman  snidely labels Steve Jobs (Jobs, Jobs, and Cars) the “heroic entrepreneur, the John Galt, I mean Steve Jobs-type ‘job creator’ Republicans love.”  Krugman rates Jobs’ achievements as inconsequential relative to Obama’s Detroit bailout – “the single most successful policy initiative of recent years.” Per Krugman, real heroes preserve vital “economic ecology and industrial clusters,” even if it takes taxpayer money. The heroes are not rugged individualists but union-industry-government partners, who, according to Obama’s State of the Union address, “work as a team” and “get each other’s backs.” 

go to Forbes.com

Steve Jobs on School Vouchers

Smithsonian Institute Oral History Interview Transcript, April 1995

The Costs of Education - Alternatives

SJ: And there's a warranty. That's right. But in schools people don't feel that they're spending their own money. They feel like it's free, right? No one does any comparison shopping. A matter of fact if you want to put your kid in a private school, you can't take the forty-four hundred dollars a year out of the public school and use it, you have to come up with five or six thousand of your own money. I believe very strongly that if the country gave each parent a voucher for forty-four hundred dollars that they could only spend at any accredited school several things would happen. Number one schools would start marketing themselves like crazy to get students. Secondly, I think you'd see a lot of new schools starting. I've suggested as an example, if you go to Stanford Business School, they have a public policy track; they could start a school administrator track. You could get a bunch of people coming out of college tying up with someone out of the business school, they could be starting their own school. You could have twenty-five year old students out of college, very idealistic, full of energy instead of starting a Silicon Valley company, they'd start a school. I believe that they would do far better than any of our public schools would. The third thing you'd see is I believe, is the quality of schools again, just in a competitive marketplace, start to rise. Some of the schools would go broke. Alot of the public schools would go broke. There's no question about it. It would be rather painful for the first several years

DM: But deservedly so.

SJ: But far less painful I think than the kids going through the system as it is right now. The biggest complaint of course is that schools would pick off all the good kids and all the bad kids would be left to wallow together in either a private school or remnants of a public school system. To me that's like saying "Well, all the car manufacturers are going to make BMWs and Mercedes and nobody's going to make a ten thousand dollar car." I think the most hotly competitive market right now is the ten thousand dollar car area. You've got all the Japanese playing in it. You've got General Motors who spent five million dollars subsidizing Saturn to compete in that market. You've got Ford which has just introduced two new cars in that market. You've got Chrysler with the Neon.

DM: So you're spending thirty-two thousand and getting a five hundred dollar car in some cases.

SJ: The market competition model seems to indicate that where there is a need there is a lot of providers willing to tailor their products to fit that need and a lot of competition which forces them to get better and better. I used to think when I was in my twenties that technology was the solution to most of the world's problems, but unfortunately it just ain't so. I'll give you an analogy. Alot of times we think "Why is the television programming so bad? Why are television shows so demeaning, so poor?" The first thought that occurs to you is "Well, there is a conspiracy: the networks are feeding us this slop because its cheap to produce. It's the networks that are controlling this and they are feeding us this stuff but the truth of the matter, if you study it in any depth, is that networks absolutely want to give people what they want so that will watch the shows. If people wanted something different, they would get it. And the truth of the matter is that the shows that are on television, are on television because that's what people want. The majority of people in this country want to turn on a television and turn off their brain and that's what they get. And that's far more depressing than a conspiracy. Conspiracies are much more fun than the truth of the matter, which is that the vast majority of the public are pretty mindless most of the time. I think the school situation has a parallel here when it comes to technology. It is so much more hopeful to think that technology can solve the problems that are more human and more organizational and more political in nature, and it ain't so. We need to attack these things at the root, which is people and how much freedom we give people, the competition that will attract the best people. Unfortunately, there are side effects, like pushing out a lot of 46 year old teachers who lost their spirit fifteen years ago and shouldn't be teaching anymore. I feel very strongly about this. I wish it was as simple as giving it over to the computer.