Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived
Print Article Email Article

Is it Time to Eat the Rich?

By Scott Burns

Is it Time to Eat the Rich?

Should we eat the rich?

The idea came to mind as I read the Forbes annual list of the 400 wealthiest people in America. Bill Gates topped the list (as usual) at $54 billion. He was followed (as usual) by Warren Buffett at $45 billion. Larry Ellison, poor guy, only took the bronze at $27 billion.

The fifth person on the list is Charles Koch. He tied for fifth with his brother David— at $21.5 billion each. Charles is a much more private person than Gates, Buffett or Ellison, but I've been at the same table with him on a number of occasions.

So I can tell you something that may surprise you. He's very much like me.

Yes, you read that right. Very much like your endearing columnist. Charles Koch graduated from M.I.T. just like I did, though not in the same year. (But his brother David graduated in 1962, as I did.)

Charles Koch married and had two children. Just like me.

Charles Koch once worked at Arthur D. Little, a consulting firm of yore. Just like me.
And Charles Koch was once on the board of directors of the National Taxpayers Union, which is where I learned all this because, yes, I was on the board of the National Taxpayers Union.

Indeed, Charles Koch and I are virtually interchangeable, except for two things. Charles Koch is handsome. And then there's that $21.5 billion.

That's a lot of money. It helps to remember what a mere billion is. It is 1,000 checks for $1 million. A billion is also the cut-off number for membership in the Forbes 400. It seems like an unbelievable amount of money, doesn't it?

And it is— until you start to imagine feeding the rich to our hungry government. According to the most recent report on federal finance, the federal deficit for the fiscal year just ending is about $1,471 billion. The estimate for the year we are just starting is $1,416 billion. That's about $118 billion a month, nearly $4 billion a day.

So let's imagine a little conveyor belt constructed for the sole purpose of feeding the government enough rich people that it can pay all its bills without borrowing. Organized in November, the money squad goes to Gates and Buffett and tells them, "Sorry, but the government has better uses for your money than all that tacky charitable foundation stuff. Everything you have will be liquidated for the public good, this month."

Unfortunately, Gates and Buffett total only $99 billion. This is just enough to cover the deficit from Nov. 1 to Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 25. So the money squad makes a quick trip to pick up Larry Ellison. They tell him the government has better uses for his money than building mega-yachts. His $27 billion will fund the deficit for another seven days, taking us to Dec. 2.

The money squad has to work a bit harder in December because personal fortunes shrink rapidly as you go down the wealth list. What you could do with only three rich people in November takes six in December. The first Walton heir (Christy, with $24 billion) picks up on Dec. 3. The Koch brothers are brought in after Christy, and MIT loses its two biggest likely donors. Heir Jim Walton (Forbes No. 7, with $20.1 billion) is brought in to get through Christmas Day. The last Walton (S. Robson, $19.7 billion) is brought in to get past New Year's Day.

The first person the money squad gets in January is Michael Bloomberg (No. 10, at $18 billion), but by the end of the month Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have been fed to the deficit, as have Sheldon Adelson (casinos, $14.7 billion), Michael Dell (computers, $14 billion), George Soros (investments, $14.2 billion), Steve Ballmer (Microsoft, $13.1 billion) and Paul Allen (Microsoft, $12.7 billion). In three months we've gone through the top 17 wealth holders in America. The number required each month is rising.

It will take 11 more to finance the February deficit and about 27 to finance the March deficit. We might go through the first 100 by the end of April. We'd go through the next 100 in May, the third 100 in two or three weeks and the last 100 in a bit over a week— by the end of June. So, in about nine months every single member of the Forbes 400 list (and every enterprise they owned) would be history.

A sober person might conclude we either need a lot more rich people or a less hungry government.

Only published comments... Nov 12 2010, 03:00 PM by admin


Comments

 

Joey44 said:

Yes, they're "rich", & make up the 400 wealthiest people but, more importantly they should be recognized for what they really are - our most "Successful" people.

Aside from how much taxes these people pay, it would be more important to know how many jobs they create & sustain annually.

But I'm sure the Federal Government is not interested in that fact.

November 13, 2010 1:26 PM
 

jgiesbers said:

You are not fooling me.  

First, we are talking income taxes.  Not taxes on wealth.

Second, the wealthy on Wall Street have just paid themselves huge bonuses again this year--$144 billion.  This after the govt has bailed them out and we won't even talk about their complicity in what is ailing the economy.  

Now, we go to the recommendation of the deficit commission to have the rank and file citizen sacrifice some retirement  income and and consider working until they are 69 years old.  This does not smell like Chanel #5.

This govt needs to deal with this class of elites and they need to do it before they start talking about the sacrifices needed by the peasant class.

FYI:  Warren Buffet has no problem paying higher taxes.  He has said this for years.

Do we need to reform govt taxing and spending and SS and Medicare?  You bet we do.  So where do we start?  Ask the jobless what they think.

November 14, 2010 11:01 AM
 

Dismayed said:

The US Government doesn't need tax at all to fund government spending because we have fiat currency - there can never be a shortage of money.  There is, however, a need to manage the purchasing power in the economy to achieve price stability and to manage real constraints instead of imagined financial constraints.

This article by Warren Mosler sums it all up nicely:

moslerforsenate.com/.../7DIF.pdf

This little article is what has convinced me that what I learned about the macro economy and monetary policy during my MBA studies at U Chicago was worthless, at best, and more likely damaging.

November 14, 2010 6:46 PM
 

al_ said:

Since this column comes right in the middle of the debate on extending tax cuts for the wealthy, it's a lot more political than most of your work, even if that wasn't intended.

Your basic point is true - we cannot balance the budget by increasing taxes on wealthy.  But you didn't address the next question: should we increase taxes for the wealthy?

It sure sounds attractive when we seem to heading towards the type of income disparities that are prevalent in the third world.  Timothy Noah recently described the trend in a lengthy and informative series series (www.slate.com/.../2267157), but you can see that something isn't right with just two stats: Wall Street bonuses and the unemployment rate.

November 15, 2010 3:36 AM
 

scottb said:

This column drew a lot of email, much of it hostile. It reminded me, yet again, that humor is often totally missed in newspapers unless it is clearly labeled, as it is in comic strips.

My purpose in writing the column was to demonstrate, as simply as possible, that there was a massive disconnect between the amount of money government is spending and the resources of citizens. If the wealth (as opposed to the income) of the wealthy will only cover the federal deficit for a matter of months, then it should be pretty clear that our focus should be on spending. Taxes are important, but with the current deficit focusing on taxes is "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

If you were to go through my columns you would find that I was NOT a fan of the second round of Bush tax cuts. While I favored tax cuts for dividend and capital gain income, I didn't see a need to reduce top tax rates as much as they were reduced.

I had a specific reason for this. I don't believe it is reasonable to talk about the income tax without also considering the employment tax. When the combined tax burden is considered, a top income tax rate of 40 percent is about the same as the marginal tax rate millions of much lower earners pay when a 25 percent income tax rate and a 15 percent (combined) employment tax are added.

Should our combined tax rate be as high as 40 percent for anyone, at any income level? No, I don't think so, but the absolute level is a different issue from the relative level.

Scott

Scott

November 15, 2010 10:17 AM
 

Registered Investment Advisor said:

By Scott Burns If you are a devoted Democrat you can stop reading now. This column will offend you. Ditto

January 14, 2011 9:28 AM

Contact Us

Open Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. (CST)

ph. 972.535.4040
fx. 214.556.3848
Email Us

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 240 Plano, Texas 75075