POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY THE DAILY TELEGRAPH'S RICHARD SPENCER
As early as Thomas Jefferson, it was recognized that certain measures of the day favored the accumulation and passing on of wealth within families. Jefferson fought these measures because they effectively created an aristocracy of no merit.
The federal inheritance tax was one of the few remaining measures in the U.S. working against this tendency. Bush eliminated it. People of modest means never even paid it.
As it is easy to observe in America, even with that tax in place there is a clear tendency towards aristocracy.
From the unbelievable wealth differentials to the fact we see many political offices going to the sons or relatives of previous office-holders. Just in the current election campaigns we have Romney, Clinton, Gore against a background of Bush. There are many more.
As to the idea that it is 'progressive' to put a huge burden on future generations, I have to think this one of the more novel notions I've seen in a while. It sounds suspiciously like something from one of the goofy American think-tanks that work night and day, like Dr Frankenstein in his lab, creating propaganda for conservative causes.
No one knows what the status of future generations will be, and this is particularly so with the relentless, rising competition from China and, to a lesser extent, India.
Americans may be in for some big surprises with even value-added, high-tech jobs going to the brains in China.
Also, any forecast of the future is incomplete without the political environment. If there are huge debts in the future and conservative government is in place, where do you think the burden for paying it will be placed?
Just look at the pitiful situation of New Orleans. The place remains a mess.
Powerful politicians do not want it restored to what it was. They won't come out and say this, but they want a gentrified, Disneyesque place - i.e. without all those poor blacks.
If American politics can do this in the wake of a terrible event like Katrina, what can't they do to the lower-income people of the future?
