Tags
Ref: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-kennedy-view-of-wealth/
As David Boaz points out in the essay above, Ms. Townsend’s premise, that the wealthy are obligated to give more back because they (somehow) have been given more, is obviously flawed, because not every wealthy person inherited their money as Ms. Townsend did. Indeed for every Kathleen Townsend there is a Warren Buffett, and then some.
Further more, I do not think that even Ms. Townsend’s wealth was “given” to her, at least not in the sense that would obligate her to “give back” more. She inherited her wealth from her ancestors, who earned it fair and square. I know the “fair and square” part is an assumption, but it is one that can be taken in general as long as we assume that most people make honest livings.
Once we start looking at the issue from the wealth’s standpoint instead of its master’s, we start realize that a change of masters does not change the fact that the wealth has been earned fair and square. Thus Ms. Townsend is merely enjoying the remnants of her ancestors earnings, in other words, the remnants of what the society has already decided to be a fair share of compensation for what her ancestors contributed to the society. So if Ms. Townsend decides to give some of it back, that’d be very generous of her, and should she happen to feel otherwise, I for one wouldn’t cast a stone.