Brzezinski: Make Rich Known Publicly To Pressure Them To Give Back

Real Clear Politics ^ | October 17, 2011 | Real Clear Politics

[Third Person]

Zbiginew Brzezinski, national security adviser under Jimmy Carter, told the "Morning Joe" program he thinks the names of the rich "should be known publicly" so the masses can "pressure some of those people to give some of it back to society." "You know, how many Americans are really fully aware of how many other good people, that’s like Warren Buffett and others, who really donate a lot of their earnings to charities, to philanthropy?" Mr. Brzezinski said. "But how many more are there in the hedge funds? In the banks? In a variety of other places who on the basis of speculation literally make millions of dollars that it would take a century or two for the average person ever to make? I would like to see those lists. And they shouldn't be that difficult to produce. And I think public pressure might have also some effect, not only in terms of moving towards more systematic international coordination and regulation. But also to pressure some of those people to give some of it back, back to society."

[Blue Highway]

Thanks for the clip. Phil Donhue looks completely confused listening to Friedman. His audience is also dumbfounded.

[mjp]

"pressure some of those people to give some of it back to society."

That is the tribal premise of property (that it belongs to society) used by libtards. The rational premise of property is that if a person earned any property justly and morally, then he owns it, and it belongs to him and not to society, the government, or anyone else and he should not feel guilty about keeping it and enjoying it.

[Third Person]

More classic Friedman [along with Thomas Sowell] debating Frances Fox Piven and Peter Jay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkdSj6arn0

[Sherman Logan]

Kind of a silly notion.

My numbers may be a tad off, but for 2011 I believe your idea would result in a family of four receiving a federal tax bill for the amount of $35,000. You are aware this is more than the total income of a good many people, I assume?

Expecting a wealthy man to pay more in taxes than a poor man is just common sense. Like robbing banks because that is where the money is.

The real question is whether a rich man should pay a higher percentage of taxation than a poor man, and I might very probably agree with you there.

I’m curious what happened to the notion of dedicating “our lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to the survival of freedom? Very obviously the great majority of money taxed away doesn’t go to this cause, it is just wasted.

Equally obviously, IMO, a refusal to support your country financially (for its truly legitimate expenditures) is at least as unpatriotic as refusal to support it militarily. If the country goes down, what good is your money going to do you?

You seem to think “the fortune” should be off-limits.

[2001convSVT]

Absolutely frightening.

Yes, it is frightening, how long before the rich must wear a gold dollar sign ($) on their clothing when they go out in public?

[tnlibertarian]

My numbers may be a tad off, but for 2011 I believe your idea would result in a family of four receiving a federal tax bill for the amount of $35,000. You are aware this is more than the total income of a good many people, I assume?

That's about my calculation, as well. Of course, it's a silly notion, you can't get $35,000 per family, but the idea is to get an understanding of what our federal behemouth costs per capita. The problem isn't in patriotism, (and I don't like taxes and patriotism being linked, sounds to Bidenesque) but in the size of the government. You said that most of the money doesn't go to the cause of freedom. Well, that's what we need to get rid of. And that doesn't depend on making sure the rich pay their 'fair share.'