Blog Dis
A word on wealth (Part II)
2024-03-07
Earlier this week, I posted about wealth and its counterpart poverty. This morning, I realized I will more than likely continue to think about this issue, one of society's greatest woes. Wealth is a prime motivator for giving each of us the gumption to put up with crap from hierarchical organizations (employers) who seemingly are happy to exert control over your life, and from Governments who will happily tax literally everything that the sun touches, and mostly to give to ourselves a better life. We are willing to slog it out day after day in a world that feels all too many times like an unfeeling and unforgiving place. I'm not exaggerating with that statement because I've survived in the workforce since the tender age of 18 and, I have the mental battle scars to prove it. I could give up and live a life of poverty on the streets or subsist in a welfare apartment on the dole. Who knows? Maybe this fate may very well become my life at some point in time in the future. I consider myself wealthy and yet at the same time, my logical mind wants to know where does the responsibility of the state come into being?
A very wise French statesman by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) wrote about the State being obligated to provide a 'floor' not a 'ceiling'. His views were profound in that living conditions for both poor and wealthy could not drop below a certain standard - that is a 'Floor'. Whereas, the height of living conditions, depending upon the State's ability to raise the standard, could rise as high as humanly possible because there should be no 'Ceiling' whatsoever. Pardon my crude description, Alexis. I am sure you are rolling over in your grave because no doubt you would have described your ideal definition in far more profound terms. But the idea is sound. Alexis is right when he says the State has to assume responsibility for providing a Floor. What he means to say is that no matter how far you fall there will always be a stable ground underneath you.
Not always, according to Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) the Russian novelist who wrote Crime and Punishment. In his gargantuan novel (at least in thought and delivery), he contends that the environment is the root of all evil and crime is the natural by-product of poverty. I read Fyodor's novel and he remains to this day one of my favourite Russian writers but I would add to his beliefs to openly suggest that wealth contributes toward crime in as much as it openly encourages it. Is it not a crime when a municipal or federal government agency taxes senior citizens on a fixed income or raises their property taxes based on an assessment in an ever fluctuating housing market? Of course it is a crime. Our governments very often behave like thought police and quasi-gestapo thugs who threaten you over any small infraction. As an example, and back in the days when I had two kitties, I returned home one evening and found in my apartment door a notice from the City advising me that if I fail to register my freeloaders I would be fined $120. My kitties, at the time, lived indoors and never went outside. My kitties didn't contribute to the state in any way nor do they cause crime or create wealth. But my tax dollars do contribute to the State and it would be a terrible crime to deny the city their tax dollars. My point being that if I was poor and unable to pay the registration renewal fee, it would mean diddly squat to the City and their bylaw.
I believe the State has responsibility to provide a reasonable level of security and clean streets and health care services, particularly for houseless and sick persons, and most definitely for our senior population who've paid into the Government coffers all their lives. The hard reality is that living in an organized society costs a bucket-load of money. And the 'Floor' to which I had referred, which some people think you take for granted, is in actuality paid for through your hard work.
Push those in power to raise the ceiling. Your tax dollars never come back to you so you might as well ask for the sky in return. Corporations have a multitude of loopholes for protecting their wealth, such as off-shore tax-free accounts, thanks to the host-country which wants your dollars parked in their banks, and which encourages tourism by limiting taxes on foreign investments.
There are no simple formulas or answers on striking the right balance between the wealthy and the poor, so long as the super rich realize that to suggest we should take public transportation, while they jet-set across countries on their planes or helicopters to go to work each day, won't fly in the face of our ever increasing gap between the haves and have-nots.
A very wise French statesman by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) wrote about the State being obligated to provide a 'floor' not a 'ceiling'. His views were profound in that living conditions for both poor and wealthy could not drop below a certain standard - that is a 'Floor'. Whereas, the height of living conditions, depending upon the State's ability to raise the standard, could rise as high as humanly possible because there should be no 'Ceiling' whatsoever. Pardon my crude description, Alexis. I am sure you are rolling over in your grave because no doubt you would have described your ideal definition in far more profound terms. But the idea is sound. Alexis is right when he says the State has to assume responsibility for providing a Floor. What he means to say is that no matter how far you fall there will always be a stable ground underneath you.
Not always, according to Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) the Russian novelist who wrote Crime and Punishment. In his gargantuan novel (at least in thought and delivery), he contends that the environment is the root of all evil and crime is the natural by-product of poverty. I read Fyodor's novel and he remains to this day one of my favourite Russian writers but I would add to his beliefs to openly suggest that wealth contributes toward crime in as much as it openly encourages it. Is it not a crime when a municipal or federal government agency taxes senior citizens on a fixed income or raises their property taxes based on an assessment in an ever fluctuating housing market? Of course it is a crime. Our governments very often behave like thought police and quasi-gestapo thugs who threaten you over any small infraction. As an example, and back in the days when I had two kitties, I returned home one evening and found in my apartment door a notice from the City advising me that if I fail to register my freeloaders I would be fined $120. My kitties, at the time, lived indoors and never went outside. My kitties didn't contribute to the state in any way nor do they cause crime or create wealth. But my tax dollars do contribute to the State and it would be a terrible crime to deny the city their tax dollars. My point being that if I was poor and unable to pay the registration renewal fee, it would mean diddly squat to the City and their bylaw.
I believe the State has responsibility to provide a reasonable level of security and clean streets and health care services, particularly for houseless and sick persons, and most definitely for our senior population who've paid into the Government coffers all their lives. The hard reality is that living in an organized society costs a bucket-load of money. And the 'Floor' to which I had referred, which some people think you take for granted, is in actuality paid for through your hard work.
Push those in power to raise the ceiling. Your tax dollars never come back to you so you might as well ask for the sky in return. Corporations have a multitude of loopholes for protecting their wealth, such as off-shore tax-free accounts, thanks to the host-country which wants your dollars parked in their banks, and which encourages tourism by limiting taxes on foreign investments.
There are no simple formulas or answers on striking the right balance between the wealthy and the poor, so long as the super rich realize that to suggest we should take public transportation, while they jet-set across countries on their planes or helicopters to go to work each day, won't fly in the face of our ever increasing gap between the haves and have-nots.
