Obviously the jealousy I cite refers to that of the apparatchiks. Specifically for this reason did I mention the Wannsee Konferenz. Bureaucrats of most stripes aren't in the least concerned with the points of view of the people over whose lives they rule. The sentiments of the masses don't figure into their calculations except for those who have to stand before the voters for job security. This goes especially for Germany, where "civil (one of the biggest ironies of modern terminology) servants" have lifetime jobs, and cannot be fired. My wife worked here for decades as a social worker, which translated out to, as often as not, being an unofficial defense counsel for the economically disadvantaged facing an uncaring bureaucracy. A bureaucrat in a job for life couldn't care less about people on some blog yelling, "tax the rich" if he is in no position to do it himself.
As for David Brooks, if I had a cent for every time I thought he made sense, I might have saved up enough over the years to make a local phone call in some phone booth whose rates hadn't been adjusted since Agnew resigned.
I distrust taxes on anything that can't be rigorously controlled. Computerized anything turns out to be manipulable more often than I find comfortable. I just don't see it. After living in Europe with its value-added taxes (which hit lower-income people hardest, what a surprise), I find this kind of thing to be government heroin. Once started, they become addicted, and always find reasons to increase it. Originally at ten per cent, they are now from a low of 19% (Germany) to 24% (most of Scandinavia), and increases are always under discussion. After all the snipping and sniping, a friend who does fairly well here (maybe $350,000 gross income) had his accountant do a calculation, and he determined that he ceased working for the government, and started working for himself sometime in mid-September of every year. That is not how a country keeps its top talent in house.
A vacancy tax on unutilized real estate is trickier, in my opinion. Speculators who deliberately hold out for higher rents at the expense of the common good deserve little quarter, but in depressed economic times, owners who can't get the rent necessary for them to cover expenses shouldn't be forced to run their property at a loss, either. That is a case-by-case issue for me, because greed can't be held to be on an equal level with survival. Here in Germany, an elderly friend of my mom-in-law, in her late eighties, inherited a residential building when her husband died. It ended up being taken over by a few families of Gypsies who pay no rent and have trashed the property. She still owes taxes on it every year, and would bequeath the premises to the local government if she could, just to be rid of it. Laws exist to protect people from eviction here, and no one is more well versed in them than those most eager to take unfair advantage of them. People who are willing to pay their rent, but lost their jobs and have fallen on hard times deserve protection. Itinerant Romanians, already disliked at home, and looking for less hostile territory for their way of life, are a different story. Blanket solutions, as always, rarely solve complex problems.
The question of wealth disparity is one that I think is one of the most complex issues that any society faces. I have no magic bullet. We are faced with powerful interests who find it more important that their allies have massive funds to allot to their political self-perpetuation, and this takes a higher priority over that bridge that needs repair. This is fundamentally wrong. Adding a dime to every electronic trade may shore up a bridge or two, but it never will if those funds are in the hands of those who think a new military base in Alabama is more urgently needed than a bridge in Minneapolis. Just raising taxes is no help if the money ends up in the wrong hands.
Just look at the EU for proof of that. One of the most effective arguments that brought about Brexit was that the European Parliament loads up its whole bureaucracy onto trucks once a month, and moves its whole operation from Brussels 430 KM to the south in Strasbourg in France (to be moved all back a week later). Why? Because the French built an EU parliament building, too, and their hotels and restaurants in Strasbourg wanted the business--and the French wanted the VAT on the business entertainment, of course. Europe has bridges in need of repair, too. The British contribution to this exercise was something like £60 million PER MONTH. You can understand why many voters were easy marks for the Brexit advocates.
Back in the days before the Soviet Empire collapsed, the Hungarians used to tell a fable about an economic conference in Budapest. The US delegate got up first, as the story goes, and said that in America, a typical citizen earned a net of $4000 a month. He needed $2000 to live on, and what he did with the extra $2000 was his own business. Then the delegate from the Soviet Union got up and said that in the Soviet Union, a typical citizen earned a net of 162 rubles a month, needed 160 rubles to live on, and what he did with the extra 2 rubles was his own business. Then the Hungarian delegate got up and said that in Hungary, a typical citizen earned 4000 forint a month. He needed 8000 forint a month to live on, and where he came up with the extra 4000 forint was his own business. It is the responsibility of every government to not let its people slip into the fictitious (though only barely--they didn't call it "goulash communism" for nothing) Hungarian model.
After half a lifetime living on a continent that has been ruled by simple slogans for over a century, if there is one thing I distrust above all else, it is solutions to problems that fit inside simple slogans. In the last election here in Germany, the people apparently thought the same way. The Social Democrats, once the dominant party, fell to a miserable 20% because they ran (surprise!) a bureaucrat who had only "mehr Gerechtigkeit" as his tired election motto. A disappointed population, already happy with Merkel's steady, deliberately unspectacular leadership, sighed in boredom, and turned away. This time, they are in danger of falling into single digits. Their party leadership is now so faceless, for the first time sine 1974, I couldn't even tell you off the top of my head the names of that party's leaders. "Give the rich a good reason to spread it around," may not make for a catchy slogan, but if people out there like Buffett and Gates can somehow make it cool to do so, we might get a little further along. If a Frank Luntz and Fox Noise can make people think they are better off getting Covid-19 than if they don't, and living in poor health and ignorance, then surely the wordsmiths can be found and hired to convince the American elite of the opposite. That would be my strategy, anyway. But what do I know? I'm just some southern clown living in a "furrin" country anyway. Sure, I sometimes get to hang with some VIPs from the States. That doesn't mean they remember every word I said, or have the clout to do something about it even if they do.
= new reply since forum marked as read
