Where does he state that the poor did not earn their wages while the rich did? It seems to me he's saying that it is ok for everyone to keep their earnings across all income brackets.
Why is it not their earnings? That pre tax income gets payed out and taxed, because someone worked for it. If someone did not work for it the company they work for would not pay the tax amount to the government. It exists because of someones work.
Once taxed it then belongs to the government, in a very real sense, the tax-payer no longer have access to it. While it no longer belongs to the tax-payer, it does not therefore follow that they did not earn it.
It doesn't even say that much. It simply ridicules proponents of wealth redistribution for sometimes calling those opposed "greedy", while they themselves are being "greedy" in going after other people's money. Whether taxes are okay isn't discussed.
It's not "other people's money" in the first place, that's the point. Packed into that notion is the idea it rightfully or originally belongs to the rich.
It doesn't. It rightfully belongs to the poor who need food and healthcare.
Again, there is no reference to "rich" vs "poor" in his argument. The argument is just a basic restatement of property rights - people own that which they've purchased through trading goods, services, or money. This applies just as much to any human being, except the truly indigent with no property whatsoever.
Why is it greed for someone to keep what income/wealth/property they've earned while also is not greed to claim that someone else's income/wealth/property is actually owed to another group?
> The argument is just a basic restatement of property rights - people own that which they've purchased through trading goods, services, or money.
Your contention is that some institutions count as property rights (contract law etc), but taxation law doesn't. I'm telling you the line between them that you draw is drawn purely with ideology.
Taxation law isn't some adjustment that takes place after property law, it is part of property law. $X of tax paid by party A that ends up funding $X of social security payments to party B, literally belongs to party B. It is the property of party B. Not party A. It is not "someone else's" in any way.
Well, if you believe that all money one might have control over belongs to the poor (or somebody else) then I guess that's fair. But that's a pretty uncommon belief.
In that way there's nothing special about the quote because most people generally recognize private ownership in everyday speech.
Claiming that something is right because it exists as it is under the current system without further justification is equally, if not more short sighted. It's where "plainspeaking" and begging the question combine into a kind of catnip for people that want reinforcement for their impulse towards the status quo. I'm not familiar with this particular quote, but I've read one of his recent books and it was full of this sort of thing.
I am not, and nor do I see the quote in question claiming that because something exists it must be right. In fact, I'm arguing against that since it is the same as saying that something being a law does not make it just.
What he does not point out is exploitation of the working class by the wealthy. However, do not expect to see that in his books. You can always claim that there are too many people looking for work so it is natural that wages are pushed down blah blah. But think for a second does it really have to be that way? Can Bezos afford to pay more to his employees?
"Corruption" is the wrong word, but from a Marxist frame, owners of business (which is what's actually talked about in Marx) profit by collecting more labor (and therefore value) from their workers than they pay them. It's usually called "exploitation" and it's pretty central to Marxist theory.
If you work for me for $15/hr and produce value v where $v <= $15, I won't keep you on.
>> Here's a typical Sowell quote: "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."
>> Why did the rich man "earn" it but not the poor man? Why is it "somebody else's" when it's the poor man's money but not when it's the rich man's money?
>> The answer is ideology.
> His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption.
No it doesn't. His comment holds true only if you assume the current economic system that created the rich and poor men is right and just. For instance: the rich man is rich typically because he owns the capital (which can be owned at massive scale) and "earns" its profits. The laborers that operate that capital for him are much poorer than he is, because all they "earn" are wages for their time (which cannot scale). Sure a particular rich man theoretically can loose his shirt (but so can laborers, for different reasons), but the general relationship will remain the same between those groups under the current system.
It's a deeply ideological assumption that the labor that enables profit is entitled to none of it (as such), and the owner (who may have enabled none of it) is entitled to all of it. Admittedly, it's an ideological assumption so fundamental to current society that it can be as hard to see as a mountain you're standing on.
> Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of.
I think the point is it's not much of an argument if it's little more than the output of certain ideological assumptions (e.g. assume P therefore P).
Agreed, it's a purely reductionist take on taxes while showing complete ignorance on who decides how much people earn in society. I wish people would stop listening to Sowell like he was the Jesus of economics. Outside of theory, he fumbles all the time.
I'm not trying to be obtuse... but isn't "who decides how much people earn" always the two people that enter into free association with one another, either by an employment contract or a sales contract?
For the higher income classes it’s that class themselves who decides how much they are earn. They sit on each others’ boards, run investment funds and so on. They mingle with politicians who then create favorable laws.
There is is no input from people with lower income. It’s an insider group that negotiates and deals with itself.
It completely ignores political corruption 100%. It completely ignores union stomping over the past 60 years, among other things. This is what I mean by his ultra reductionist views, he refuses to consider external factors when he talks about social issues, which is weird for a top economist to do.
I think some people in this thread are recalling interviews or talk shows with Sowell, while others are referring to his books. In video I have seen of him, I can agree he can be flippant on some topics... maybe the format of the television interview or "debate" or "round-table" would leave the impression that he hasn't thought carefully about these things. I'd recommend his books and essays.
The notes on political corruption and union stomping over the past 60 years are intriguing, do you have any good references to solid academic sources on these or related topics?
Anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, and individuals that hold high-amounts of those related beliefs have very few basic laws that govern their world views (1-3, depending on who you ask). If you believe that the fruits of your labor are yours and yours alone with no exception, then no amount of talk of "union stomping", "historic injustice" and "external factors" will change the interpretation of the fact that taxation is violating that principle.
So I fully understand how you think his views are utra-reductionist.
The corruption issue is well-known, but not relevant. Corruption has been demonstrably worse in non-capitalist societies. Likewise, the biggest issue with capitalism is actually the lack of perfect information (and manipulation of information), but once again, non-capitalist systems have at least as big of an issue here (usually far worse).
The partial solution for information involves requiring more disclosures, having a smaller government with higher transparence, and (historically impossible) making that information easily available and publicly searchable on the internet. This also tends to help reduce the corruption issue.
A complete solution for either corruption or information transfer seems out of reach at the moment.
The short answer is simply that of all the systems we've tried as humans, capitalism (though imperfect) is the least worst and results in the least human suffering.
