Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Government Greed (Thomas Sowell)
Creators Syndicate ^ | October 12, 2010 | Thomas Sowell

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.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: sowell; thomassowell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: jazusamo

No one calls it greed b/c it’s theft.


21 posted on 10/12/2010 12:52:50 PM PDT by bayouranger (The 1st victim of islam is the person who practices the lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vor Lady
It isn't Dr. Sowell's model, it's in the Constitution that way.

No, it's not. Here is the list of legitimate uses found in Article I Section 8:

Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

I'm pretty sure since he teaches economics, he probably understands the free market.

Given that most economics professors are Marxists, I wouldn't be so sanguine as to proffer that position as any indication of knowledge or expertise. My economics adviser in college specialized in game theory as applies to betting on horse races. Just because the media celebrates Dr. Sowell, doesn't mean he always knows what he's talking about.

22 posted on 10/12/2010 1:03:48 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat; Willie Green
Willie,

Here's a good lesson to help you understand where you actually fit on the political spectrum/n-space):

"Thomas Sowell hits one out of the park . . . again, PING

"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. "

Fits you to a tee, it does.

23 posted on 10/12/2010 1:07:45 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Thank God for Thomas Sowell.


24 posted on 10/12/2010 1:14:43 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

I make a similar argument whenever a leftist describes someone as greedy for wanting a tax break -

“who is more greedy? The person who wants to keep more of what he earns in order to spend or give as he sees fit, or the person who wishes to empower government to confiscate what the other guy earns in order to spend as THEY see fit?”


25 posted on 10/12/2010 1:19:43 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Willie Green

Hey Willie boy, if you had a tenth the thought power of Dr. Sowell you wouldn’t be posting those socialist choo choo threads at Free Republic and all the while claiming you’re a conservative. ROTFLMAO!


27 posted on 10/12/2010 1:50:43 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
But I think most Americans should aspire to more respectable careers.

In your version of America, what career would you find suitable for a black man like Sowell?

28 posted on 10/12/2010 2:04:57 PM PDT by Hoodat ( .For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

That section describes the authority of Congress over what would become Washington DC, not what the federal government could use eminent domain as a tool for in executing its enumerated powers.

I don’t see eminent domain listed anywhere in the Constitution, though it does seem to be implied by the fifth (not that, IMO, that is enough to justify it).


29 posted on 10/12/2010 2:08:31 PM PDT by Darth Reardon (Some politely call me free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Thank You, AM.


30 posted on 10/12/2010 2:20:28 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon
That section describes the authority of Congress over what would become Washington DC, not what the federal government could use eminent domain as a tool for in executing its enumerated powers.

Hmmm... looks like you are right, but then, there's

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Which certainly includes buying land for the purpose of national defense, but not for transportation, other than perhaps the post office. BTW, getting rid of the post office and "post roads" is one instance in which I think an Amendment is advisable.

31 posted on 10/12/2010 2:31:28 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I'm pretty sure since he teaches economics, he probably understands the free market.
Given that most economics professors are Marxists, I wouldn't be so sanguine as to proffer that position as any indication of knowledge or expertise. My economics adviser in college specialized in game theory as applies to betting on horse races.
Sowell himself was a Marxist - until, at age 30, he studied the effect of the "minimum wage" law and determined that it hurt the people it purported to help.
Just because the media celebrates Dr. Sowell
In what universe has that ever happened?
doesn't mean he always knows what he's talking about.
No, it wouldn't, even if it were true.

And the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, either. But that is the way to bet them.

After three decades of following Professor Sowell's writing, I am blithe to say that my money would be on him in any intellectual argument with anyone who was fool enough to take for granted that they had a better grasp of economics, and more wisdom, than he.

32 posted on 10/12/2010 2:42:17 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
After three decades of following Professor Sowell's writing, I am blithe to say that my money would be on him in any intellectual argument with anyone who was fool enough to take for granted that they had a better grasp of economics, and more wisdom, than he.

I beat him on the impact of regulation on land use, hands down. Frankly, by comparison, both his arguments and his data are childishly over-simplified. His work is designed for a popular audience; it is by no means innovative.

33 posted on 10/12/2010 2:57:36 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate IS the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
In your version of America, what career would you find suitable for a black man like Sowell?

In my version of America, an eighty-year-old gentleman like Dr. Sowell would be comfortably retired and not making excuses for the corporate lobbyists who are undermining American Middle Class opportunities.

34 posted on 10/12/2010 2:57:42 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Did I provoke WG? Sorry I missed it.

or maybe; Sorry, I missed it.

35 posted on 10/12/2010 3:04:41 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Didn’t miss much, just being the same old jerk he usually is.


36 posted on 10/12/2010 3:11:45 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
"the corporate lobbyists who are undermining American Middle Class opportunities. "

Willie,

You are not being held down. Certainly not by all those folks writing the legislation that DemocRATs love to pass before they read it.

Maybe you might be slightly retarded by Soros, Buffett, Imam 0bama, Pelosi, Reid and other millionaire/billionaire statists (like JF'nK, OK like W who probably lives in your head rent free too), but if they got theirs, you can go get yours.

As Zer0 says, "Buck up, don't get all wee-wee'd up!"

37 posted on 10/12/2010 3:12:15 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

An outstanding and professional post, cIc.


38 posted on 10/12/2010 3:12:52 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
The word 'entitlement' is a fancy word for greed.

Not greed: envy. Democrats pander to envy at all times.

39 posted on 10/12/2010 3:44:49 PM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Great article, great comments.


40 posted on 10/12/2010 4:04:07 PM PDT by TheOldLady (Pablo is very wily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson