¿Cómo pueden los super-ricos hiper-especulatas que se han forrado a costa del megaendeudamiento de cientos de miles de gilipollas, evitar ser linchados en cuanto la cosa pete?
La pregunta no es otra ocurrencia de un friki cualquiera, si no una lectura recomendada de hoy del Financial Times, via
www.housepricecrash.co.uk How super-rich can avoid lynching
By John Thornhill
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/30c438b2-e...0779fd2ac.html
Published: February 22 2008 18:23 | Last updated: February 22 2008 18:23
Cita:
We have, it seems, reached that point in the economic cycle when resentment is rising against the rich. In an economic upswing few mind that the rich are doing better than others. If you can buy a Mini then why worry that someone else is picking up a Maserati? But in the downswing it just seems plain unjust that the rich invariably avoid their share of the pain.
That sentiment has marked the US presidential election campaign as fears of recession grip the country.
House prices are falling, over-stretched mortgage holders are losing their homes, banks have blown billions in the credit markets and yet disgraced financiers have walked away with millions in a perverse “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” kind of capitalism.
The two remaining Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have been feeding off such populist resentments. Mr Obama, in particular, has been attacking the “moral deficit” in the US that has led to such a wide divide between the super-rich and 37m poor Americans.
“We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in 10 minutes than some workers make in 10 months,” he says.
In the UK too there is growing resentment against the rich – especially those rich non-domiciled foreigners who are perceived to have benefited from over-generous tax treatment. In a Guardian/ICM opinion poll published this week, three quarters of respondents said the gap between high and low incomes was too wide – the highest level recorded by ICM.
German voters, already agitated by high pay-outs to imperious chief executives, have been further angered by the country’s biggest tax fraud, in which scores of rich executives are believed to have concealed their wealth in bank accounts in Liechtenstein. Jürgen Thumann, chairman of Germany’s BDI industry federation, told the Financial Times this week that the reputation of the business community had fallen so low that it feared  “a public lynching”.
Given this ugly mood, the lessons seem clear for politicians: it is time to squeeze the rich, to unleash spies to flush out their hidden bank accounts in Liechtenstein, to force them to pay higher congestion charges for their Porsches – as in London. But popular resentment often begets terrible legislation. Slapping indiscriminate additional taxes on the rich can also prove a futile endeavour. Nimble tax advisers are always likely to remain one step ahead of plodding legislators.
Besides, dig a little deeper and public attitudes towards the rich become more complex. Few object to entrepreneurs earning big rewards thanks to their own endeavours. No one could reasonably begrudge Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, his prodigious wealth, earned by the relentless application of superior intelligence in competitive markets. Nor could anyone fail to admire his massive charitable donation to the Gates Foundation.
What rankles are the “undeserving rich”: those who take risks with other people’s money but never suffer the consequences of their mistakes; those who receive massive pay-offs even when they have failed; those who evade taxes while benefiting from public goods. Here surely there is a case for more considered intervention.
In the meantime, here is a suggestion for suasion rather than compulsion: send all rich taxpayers a copy of Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”. The essay, first published in 1889, addressed what Carnegie saw as the problem of his (and our) age: the proper administration of wealth, vital so that “the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship”.
Unsurprisingly from the man who crushed the Homestead steel strikes, the ruthless capitalist had robust views about making money. Great inequality was the price of progress. It was pointless to criticise the inevitable. “Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor,” he wrote. Carnegie had no time for indiscriminate charity – arguing it only fed the vices it was intended to cure – and wrote that higher wages for the poor would mostly be wasted on the “indulgence of appetite”. By creating their fortunes, the rich had shown they were more capable managers of money. They would therefore spend it more responsibly.
Such views would horrify many readers in the developed world today – although they are widely echoed by Russian oligarchs and Chinese tycoons. But perhaps Carnegie’s most telling argument was that the rich had an immense responsibility to administer their money wisely during their lifetimes for the benefit of all. Like him, they should give away the vast bulk of their wealth to provide “ladders upon which the aspiring can rise” – in his case an astonishing endowment of libraries and parks.
While wealth creation and distribution should remain free, Carnegie supported high inheritance taxes. “Of all forms of taxes this seems the wisest,” he wrote. “By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life.” 
Much has changed since Carnegie’s day. Great fortunes are made in ways that Carnegie would have probably considered unworthy. The state now plays a far bigger role in the economy. Inspired by his example, a magnificent tradition of philanthropy has flourished in the US and to a lesser extent Europe.
Pro-business politicians now denounce “death taxes”. But Carnegie’s conclusion still provokes thought and should inspire action: “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” |
Menudo madmaxismo que gastan desde el Financial. Mira que recomendar que los más forrados se dediquen cuanto antes a la filantropia para que no los linchen.
Solo 11 paginitas de recomendación. ¿Le harán caso con las frenéticas ganas que hay de aprovechar las "crisis" para moderar salarios a toda prisa, y para autoreducirse impuestos?
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/***-b...byte=105889224 En dos lugares que aparece *** poner "
c_
g_
i" ...sin "_"