![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Linda McGibney understands what Ben Stein doesn't.
No one gets rich in a vacuum. Wealth does not drop out of the sky like manna. The wealthy can't maintain their wealth without a vast support system.
Go ahead. Name me one, just one, person whose wealth didn't come from the efforts of many, many other people supporting the one who became wealthy.
Oil wealth? That comes from all the field workers who found the oil, the people who built the wells, risked their lives drilling for it, refining it, selling it. The one(s) who got wealthy off it may have supervised, directed, had the vision, may even have done some of the hard and dirty work, but without all those other people actually doing the work - and all the people buying the end products - the oil rich wouldn't be rich.
Hotel wealth? That comes from the architects, the builders, the janitors, the maintenance people, the desk clerks, the security, the bell hops, the chefs, the waitresses, the concierge, the marketers, the event planners - without all of these people, those who sit atop the pyramid of the hotel in their wealth wouldn't be rich.
Stock market tycoons? Their wealth comes from the people who generate the businesses and the products they maneuver about, the willingness of others to work hard so they can make the decisions that make or break those businesses. Without those people willing to share (or give up) control of their dreams, the stock market players would have no "toys" to play with and thus no wealth.
Celebrities? Without people willing to pay to see them, willing to work hard to earn the money to pay to see them, celebrities wouldn't be celebrities, they'd have no wealth at all, no matter how outrageous, outlandish, or talented they might be.
All wealth comes from the efforts of many people. The wealthy may have had the vision, may have been able to provide the seed money, may have worked hard, but they didn't get rich alone. Why they feel the money they earn belongs to them alone boggles my mind.
The huge gap between wealthy and poor is caused by the wealthy thinking they were "self made", that they earned that money in some sort of vacuum and they therefore don't have to let go of one thin penny - including paying living wages to those who helped them achieve their wealth.
All you have to do is watch an episode of that reality show where CEOs go to work for their companies - and see the CEOS fail at even the simplest tasks they demand of their employees, to see the lack of essential equipment the employees cope with, the long hours, the low wages, and the employees (most of them - there are always the few who grift and slack at all levels) to see that bosses have no clue about the efforts put in by their employees. Sadly, not one of the bosses (I've seen several episodes while waiting in lines and waiting rooms) has done the most logical thing - increase the wages of all their employees to a livable wage. Nope. They "gift" the particular employees they meet with trips and advancement opportunities and scholarships for their kids while all the equally worthy employees they didn't meet continue to scrabble at living with low wages.
So, yes, the wealthy owe back to all the people who helped make and keep them wealthy. If they won't do it by providing living wages to their employees (who will then be paying higher taxes because they earn more - and will be buying more because - duh! - they earn more), then they have to do it through taxes that will pay for all the things living wages would have paid for. Donating to charities is way for the wealthy to reduce their tax burden, but when the poor donate more per dollar earned than the wealthy do (if a person earns $10 and donates $1, she's donating more (10%) than the person who earns $100 and donates $4 (4%) - even though dollar-wise the richer person is donating four times as much as the poorer), the wealthy aren't upholding their societal contract.
If the wealthy won't - on their own - pay living wages and donate adequate percentages to agencies that are providing much needed services, then something will happen to eventually balance things out. Personally, I prefer the gentler method of increased taxes than the potentially deadly rebellion of the desperate poor against the clueless rich. The poor aren't lazy, they're busy, usually working 2 or 3 jobs - and if they lose the ability to be busy - massive layoffs, no hiring even at minimum wage (which is so far below a living wage as to be laughable), overworking the ones left on the payroll - things could get ugly.
My advice to the rich is to campaign for living wages and then pay them - that way the tax burden is spread out - or to just shut up and pay the taxes, like Ms. McGibney says.