|
On November 12, 1998, the Star Tribune (Newspaper
of the Twin Cities!) had an article on the front page entitled "Daytons
reveal decision to cap their wealth; extra income will go to charity."
The decision, reports the fawning piece, means that Kenneth and Judy
Dayton "don't add to their savings each year, but rather give their
unspent income to charity." The director of the Minnesota Council on
Foundations gushes that this "is certainly an indication that the Daytons
are continuing to serve our community as a role model." "What a wonderful
decision it was," said Kenneth Dayton, one of five brothers who was
active in the retailing corporation. The family's total wealth is estimated
at 1.3 billion dollars, although "Dayton declined...to give specific
figures on their wealth" according to the report. Role model? Wonderful
decision? Declined to give figures? What planet are they living on?
This particular article was loaded with memorable quotes.
I offer here just a sample, along with my illuminating comments. Kenneth:
"I think the important thing is the principles that [our position] enunciates,
not the dollars or the percent." (Somehow I guessed that you would think
that, Kenneth.) Kenneth again: "As your giving grows, so do you." (Dare
to be a giant, Kenneth!) Kenneth and Judy, the article says, are wondering
"‘whether we will ever have the courage and fortitude and intelligence'
to take the next step reducing their wealth." (I figure if you've got
the intelligence to inherit a billion dollars, you're smart enough to
give away a few extra million...per month...for the rest of your life.)
Rich people are a funny bunch, aren't they? I'm reminded
of a joke I heard recently: A young boy in an elite private school was
asked to write an essay on poverty. His essay began, "Once there was
a very poor family. The father was poor, the mother was poor, the children
were poor, the butler was poor, the cook was poor, and the gardener
was poor." Get it?
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines philanthropy as
"a desire to help mankind through acts of charity, etc.; love of mankind."
Hmm. So why am I not grateful to the Daytons for capping their wealth?
Let Claude Rosenberg explain. Mr. Rosenberg runs an organization called
"Newtithing GroupTM" which "analyzes and forecasts American wealth to
reveal the untapped potential of comfortable and affordable giving."
(I'm not making this up.) In the second-to-last paragraph Claude gives
us Philanthropy 101, as follows: "While the success stories of the prosperous
have recently been held in awe, if wealthy people don't make a more
recognizable impact on our country's needs, then national fascination
may turn to national frustration, triggering higher taxation or other
forms of expropriation aimed at forcibly sharing the wealth." Whoa,
Nellie! We can't have that, now, can we?
Mr. Rosenberg is right, of course. Rich people have memories,
and can undoubtedly recall the 1960s, when national frustration was
apparently higher and the top tax rate was 70%. It's under 40% now.
The rich are sure sharing a heckuva lot less wealth these days. So the
top one percent of the population seem to have managed to get a 43%
tax cut over the years, while their share of the national income has
gone up; that's what I'm in awe about. Interestingly, while overall
charitable giving during the roaring ‘80s increased by over 9 percent,
the average millionaire decreased their giving by almost 39 percent.
That's awful, too.
The bottom line is this: Rich people will give away a
lot of money if it will allow them to keep their power. Like the power
to make money, the power to keep it away from you, and the power to
spend it on what they want. I recently ran across a quote from the Green
Party referring to the rise of "neoliberalism" in international economics,
and it applies to the current case quite nicely: "Neoliberalism strips
away political power, which is possessed by people, in favor of economic
power, in which corporations hold the advantage." Domestically, too,
our system is oriented toward property rather than people. In a democracy,
where people rule, the majority of people can agree to a tax rate sufficient
to provide for the common good. In a plutocracy, where money rules,
taxes are seen as a "form of expropriation aimed at forcibly sharing
the wealth." What sort of society do we live in?
Call me a crank, but I grew up in the southern Minnesota
county of Waseca. When I lived there, we had the distinction of being
home to the largest number of millionaires per capita of any county
in Minnesota while at the same time being home to the largest number
of recipients of public assistance of any county in Minnesota. Coincidence?
Don't get confused. If wealth were distributed equally,
no one would need big-league philanthropy. Besides, no one would be
rich enough to undertake it. That's what a real democracy might look
like. And that's why I suffer from a serious gratitude deficit when
I read about the prospect of bigger and better crumbs from the tables
of the plutocrats.
|
