Posted on 10/12/2010 12:07:06 PM PDT by jazusamo
|
|
Those who are always accusing people in the private sector of "greed" almost never accuse government of greed, no matter what it does. Indeed, the question of whether the government is greedy almost never comes up, so most of us probably never think about it. The first time I was forced to think about it was some years ago, when a bank notified me that the government was about to seize a bank account of mine, unless I took action. Since I didn't owe the government any money, and was not accused of any crime, I was baffled. What had happened was that I had received a private grant to help finance international travel in connection with my research into racial and cultural issues in countries around the world. Since the money was not for my personal use, I opened a separate bank account to hold that money until I was ready to go overseas. Such a trip would obviously take a lot of time, so I had to get my other work and commitments cleared up before I could take off for a few months. That was easier said than done, so the bank account with the travel money in it just sat there, with nothing being added to it or taken from it. There are escheat laws, under which the government can seize the assets of someone who has died and whose heirs have not claimed those assets after some period of time. The theory is that there is no reason why banks should get that money. On the other hand, there is no reason why politicians should get it either, but the politicians write the laws. Like other laws, escheat laws have some plausible rationale. And, like other laws, what is actually done can end up going far beyond those rationales. The period during which a bank account can be dormant before the government moves in has been shortened to a very few years. Those few years had elapsed before I had an opportunity to take an extended trip overseas, so the government would have seized the money and my personal papers in a safety deposit box if the bank had not warned me and I had not gotten there first. The government doesn't have to prove that you are dead. The fact that your bank account had nothing added to it or taken from it for a few years is enough. Apparently politicians cannot imagine how someone would have money and not spend it, unless they were dead. Escheat laws are just one of the ways governments seize money. Income tax rates have been as high as 90 percent in the top brackets. Even after you have paid the taxes on your income and saved or invested part of what is left, the government comes back to take more of that same money, after you die, with estate taxes. Perhaps one of the most unconscionable acts of greed by government is confiscating people's homes, in order to turn this property over to other people, who are expected to build things that will pay more taxes. The Constitution allows the government to take private property for its own use, provided "just compensation" is paid. That way the government can build reservoirs, bridges, or highways, for example, even if that requires displacing some people. But judges over the years have expanded this power to include taking private property just to turn it over to some other private individual or business. There are various ways in which the money actually paid to homeowners can be less than the market value of their homes. Moreover, since these homeowners had not chosen to sell their homes in the market, the value that they put on their homes obviously exceeded the market value. Destroying a neighborhood is more than destroying the physical structures there. Valuable personal, professional and business relationships, built up over a period of years, are also destroyed when the people are scattered to the winds. The biggest beneficiaries are the politicians who get a larger amount of tax money to spend in ways that will increase their prospects of getting re-elected. Seldom, if ever, are the people whose homes are destroyed, and whose lives are disrupted, among the affluent or rich. Urban renewal may go through the South Bronx, but not through Beverly Hills. And no one calls it greed. |
Best line in the piece -- though all his lines are, as usual, great!
Why is it that the government ALWAYS assumes that you can do with less money but that they NEVER can?
They’re just trying to help by being there for us. /sarc
Question: IF oil companies are “greedy” and supposedly cheat us when gas prices go up,
Then how are alternative energy companies and their government allies not “greedy” when they insist their energy costs more, plus we have to subsidize them with our tax money?
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
Great question and I would suspect the enviro nazis + Democrats + fast buck artists have something to do with it.
Yep! :)
Which precludes the speculative investment in land for those purposes while rewarding those who know about the coming project and derive an economic benefit from the added capital infrastructure. In no way are the original owners compensated for that benefit. So, even under Dr. Sowell's idealized model, it is a system that invites corruption.
On the other hand, were there no eminent domain, a speculator in a dam for example, could buy options from the landowners, optimizing the use of those sites as temporary and making use of them less costly. It would specialize some folks in identifying potential uses and assembling them as contractual overlays. In short, Sowell doesn't understand how free markets work in these areas as well, because there is no such thing as half-way free.
Because they write the laws and, until now, they have been able to get away with it by having the gatekeeper media tell us what they wanted us to hear.
The internet has changed everything. More people with more access to more information has made for a more informed populace. And that populace is mad as hell.
Not only is it greed, it is moral theft.The only ting keeping it from being theft is the fact that the “law” justifies it.
How would the government workers feel if one of us needed a car,and simply went to the DOT motor pool, picked one out and confiscated it? (Sorry, but it was just sitting there not being used! Ha HA , see you later....).Thats what is done in Zimbabwe!
The government is not only greedy, it is wiley, and dishonest. Its the biggest confidence/protection racket we have. It is overdone, invasive, and I want them OUT of my life except for the barest of necessities: law enforcement, military defence, roads, and post office. The rest they can stick up the rectal cavities of the fat cats in Washington, twist it sideways, and give them all large doses of socialist laxative.
Having exhausted their taxing power, now they have illegally mandated us to enter into a private health care contract which is not only unconstitutional, its morally reprehensible. Millions of us will justly refuse because we want to be in charge of how long we live, and in charge of our own quality of life. Let them do their worst. Who will they import next, Robert Mugabe? Seizure of personal wealth?
They better start expanding their brown shirt contingent.
This is a point I often make with liberals. Whenever they bring up their typical "rich people are greedy" class envy mantra, I am quick to remind them that liberals are the greedy ones for demanding an ever-increasing share of their income. I have yet to see anyone earning over $100,000 per year demand as a right a portion of other people's income. Yet I hear from Democrats all the time that these same people "aren't paying their fair share". The word 'entitlement' is a fancy word for greed.
Thomas Sowell a clear thinker well advanced of his peers; I enjoy his writings.
almost never accuse government of greed
The concerned, complainers and whiners are just part of government and friends of government all looking to confiscate as much wealth and the labor of others for their own benefit; projecting upon successful citizenry their own conduct as the preemptive strike of class envy.
I'm going to have to save that for a future tagline.
bump
All of these Democrats in media and government and academe probably make over that 100K
It isn't Dr. Sowell's model, it's in the Constitution that way.
In short, Sowell doesn't understand how free markets work in these areas as well, because there is no such thing as half-way free.
I'm pretty sure since he teaches economics, he probably understands the free market.
Thanks for the ping to more truth from Dr. Sowell jaz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.