In a New York Times article published on October 31, 2025, Patricia Cohen explored the idea that we might "tax the rich," and impose a "tax on wealth," as inequality has widened and as government debt has risen. Cohen points out that this is not really a new idea, and that a tax on wealth was actually imposed by colonists in Massachusetts, in the 1600's, prior to the establishment of our current government as a democratic republic. The idea of a wealth tax continues to be discussed. Click the link below to read what Cohen has to say. Cohen's article in The Times is titled, "Should A Wealth Tax Compel The Rich To Fork Some Over?"
I, personally, think that our elected representatives should, in fact, both explore and implement a tax on what Senator Bernie Sanders calls the "billionaire class," and specifically enact a tax on "wealth." I would like to suggest to anyone reading this that any such action would not, in fact, be an illegitimate way to use our collective political power - and should not be characterized as taking something away from those who have legally "earned it," to provide benefits for people who have done nothing to deserve them. In other words, I would like to persuade anyone reading this blog posting that a responsible tax on wealth is neither unfair nor unjustifiable.
I often say in my blog postings that we are "in this together." If we are - and I think it is clear that this is absolutely true - that means that we will all either live (or die) together. Accepting that premise means that our government is not only empowered to address our common problems, and our common possibilities, but that this, in fact, is the fundamental reason for establishing our government in the first place. Our government has been established to take any appropriate action to accomplish what our democratically-elected representatives decide will benefit the nation as a whole, and this can certainly include a "tax on wealth," as long as no provision of the United States Constitution is being violated by any such governmental action.
"Taxes," including taxes on property, and taxes on income - and lots of other taxes, too - have been challenged as "unconstitutional," and have, after such challenge, been found to pass constitutional muster. Claims have been made that a person's income or property belongs solely to the person who is earning, or who has earned (or inherited) that income or property, and that letting the government take away something of value that is owned by someone, to benefit others who didn't do anything to contribute to the property or income being taxed, is not really "fair," and is prohibited by the Constitution. Such claims have been rejected by the courts.
Of course, what is constitutionally permissible can only be put into practice if our elected representatives vote to do so. Lots of people don't think that a "tax on wealth" would be fair, or would be a good thing, as a matter of policy, and so the elected representatives of the people may well choose not to enact a "wealth tax." In fact, in general, it is pretty hard to get elected officials at any level of government to "raise taxes," because so many people believe that doing that would not be fair (in general, and to them, specifically).
However, what if a majority of our elected officials did decide that it would be appropriate to enact a tax on wealth? Presumably, the elected officials doing that wouled be representing a majority of the population, who elected them - but any such tax would, of course, be controversial, and there would undoubtedly be lots of "compromises," to arrive at a specific program to "tax wealth" that a majority of the elected officials would support.
So far, this discussion has really been by way of background. Let's address the proposition that the majority of us should demand that our elected representatives take action to establish some sort of system that would require "the "wealthy" (which we would have to define, specifically, of course) to "fork some over," and to provide some part of their wealth to be used to benefit the public generally, and specifically to benefit others who are not wealthy.
Frequently, any proposition to do something like this is called "socialism" by opponents, or even "communism," with these labels intended to suggest that taxing "wealth" would be contrary to everything we have always "believed in," here in the United States, and that taxing wealth would contradict everything that has "made this country great." Opposition to Zohran Mamdani, just recently elected as the Mayor of New York City, revolved around this very debate. Mamdani wants to fund projects (like free busses, and free childcare) that can only be funded if those who are "wealthy" are required to "fork some over." A very significant majority of the voters in New York City decided that they liked the idea. So, is that idea "fair"?
I would like to advance a single example, to discuss the "fairness" issue, but one that is well-known by almost everyone who lives in the United States of America - if not everyone who lives everywhere else in the world, too. I speak, here, of Amazon, and of Jeff Bezos, a billionaire who is credited with inventing what has turned out to be an incredibly profitable business - online commerce. According to Wikipedia, Bezos is "the third richest person in the world." As an incidental comment, let me say that while Jeff Bezos is given the credit for inventing and advancing Amazon, as though he did it all by himself, I think that much credit is also due to Bezos' former wife, MacKenzie Scott. Because of the success of Amazon, Scott is also very wealthy, but unlike her former husband, MacKenzie Scott is taking steps to give her money away. She is already "forking some over." Jeff Bezos won't do that, though, unless we pass a tax law to make him contribute.
Let's stipulate that Bezos is properly the individual most responsible for the development of Amazon and its fantastically profitable business - though not forgetting my shout-out to MacKenzie Scott helping to come up with the idea, and then expanding and developing it into the monumental and hugely profitable enterprise it is today. Bezos got rich! He deserved it!
But who else has contributed to the immense success of Amazon, and has thus contributed to the wealth that Amazon has produced? Amazon employess have, of course - and it's my impression that many (not all) have been very well compensaged for their contributions. But what about YOU? You have, and I have, and everyone who has used Amazon has contributed to the wealth that Amazon has produced. Amazon is a pretty clear example of the general truth that it is not only those who own a business who help make that business economically profitable. Those who patronize the business do so, too.
Bezos (and MacKenzie Scott) deserve to be richly rewarded for their creativity, and hard work - as do all those others who have helped make it a success - creating something truly new, and making a fundamental change in our commercial world. But we really are "in this together," and no such success would exist without us - we who patronize Amazon!
Consider the word "commonwealth," which the dictionary tells us means "a nation, state, or other political unit." Our wealth, here in the United States of America, really is, in the end, and when we think about it, created "in common."
We are, in fact, and not just theoretically, "in this together," and that means that it is wholly proper and "fair" for us to decide how best to mobilize the wealth of the nation to benefit all those who are and have been involved in its prosperity.
There is nothing "unfair" about taxing the wealth of the wealthiest people in the world in order to make them to "fork some over" to provide health, education, and welfare for those who live here, too.
We are "all in this together," remember. We really are!
Image Credit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/business/economy/wealth-tax-france.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!