Quick Take
This November, Californians will vote on a one-time 5% wealth tax for billionaires. This comes just as Elon Musk briefly became the world's first trillionaire, highlighting the growing divide between the super wealthy and the rest of the world. Here, with his characteristic humor, Daniel DeLong examines the role of money in human civilization and offers to take one for the team.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
“Money is the root of all evil.” ~ 1 Timothy 6:10
Except the Bible doesn’t say that.
There are about half a dozen different versions of the most famous (and most misquoted) Bible verse concerning money, and it depends on which version of the Bible you’re reading (there are several). But while they might differ slightly in the “evil” part (all evil, all sorts of evil, all kinds of evil, etc.), the first part of this verse is identical in every one, and it’s the part that always gets left out when being quoted.
It’s not money itself that is the root of all/some/bunches of evil.
It’s the LOVE of money. And it’s a critical distinction.
For a book often criticized for containing a whole slew of inconsistencies, every priest/scribe/monk/king who had a hand in shaping the texts of the Bible throughout history clearly agreed on this.
Money itself isn’t evil; loving money is.
Most billionaires, it would seem, have a difficult time navigating this dichotomy (hence the argument for things like a “wealth tax”), but given the opportunity, I think I would handle it pretty well. It’s just a matter of not losing perspective.
Money only came into existence to solve a fundamental defect in the barter system: There needed to be a placeholder for wealth. It’s just a logistical thing. There’s nothing inherently evil in that.
But when the desire for wealth rises above all other considerations (also known as “greed”), things like morality, humanity and empathy fall by the wayside. And that is pretty much the definition of evil.
The love of money is perhaps most evil when it arises from the mistaken belief that it will automatically bring everlasting happiness (it doesn’t) because that is a painful lesson to learn. It’s not uncommon for people who have won the lottery to describe their level of happiness several years later as being no higher than it was before all that money came into their lives.
Some even describe it as actually having ruined their lives.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who fall into the trap of thinking “if I only had more money I’ll get there” and then, while chasing that dragon, discover that although the happiness part might not be working out, all that money does bring them inordinate power and influence. This eventually leads to corruption (because that’s what power does), so at best you end up with a bunch of rich, powerful, corrupt, ultimately unhappy people.
At worst, you get those who discover that having power and influence IS what makes them happy.
Elon Musk himself (the richest man in the world and for a brief moment an actual trillionaire, at least on paper) has admitted publicly that money can’t buy happiness, although he definitely seems pretty gleeful when wielding his inordinate power and influence.
The current debate is whether or not anyone on the planet should have that kind of wealth at all. And here in California, the debate, otherwise known as Proposition 40, asks if those with billions should be taxed a one-time wealth tax of 5% of their net worth.
I think this would be less of an issue if billionaires weren’t so willfully disconnected from the lives of ordinary humans. To be fair, not all of them are. MacKenzie Scott, for example (Jeff Bezos’ ex), has given away about $26 billion (with a “b”) of her own money to nonprofit causes, and today is actually worth more than she was when they divorced (thanks to Amazon’s stock continuing to rise).
But she is an exception. Most people in the three-comma club do clever stuff like pay less tax than you or I by keeping their reported income low and just taking out massive loans against the stocks they own to fund lavish lifestyles.
Many of the hardcore capitalists are of course against Prop 40. They’re screaming “COMMUNISM!” while the Democratic Socialists say it’s just expecting the super-rich to pay their fair share.
So what constitutes “fair”? Is it fair that someone should have to give up a portion of the money they rightfully earned just because they ended up being really, really successful?
That all depends on how broadly you stretch the definition of “rightfully earned.”
Consider: Mark Zuckerberg made a website (Facebook). He didn’t invent computers. He didn’t invent the internet.
Jeff Bezos also didn’t invent computers or the internet, nor did he build the transportation systems (like the U.S. interstate highway system) that facilitate the delivery of all those Amazon packages.
Elon Musk also didn’t build the highways that Teslas drive on, nor did he discover electricity or invent the electric car. He wasn’t even the founder of Tesla (although legally he gets to call himself that), and he sure as heck didn’t build the first rocket that flew to space.
Point being: Tech-bro billionaires in the 21st century aren’t 100% self-made. All these guys acquired their vast fortunes by building upon things that generations of other people working hard and inventing and innovating and collaborating over the many decades had already achieved.
They got rich standing on a pedestal built by their predecessors in the dogged advance of human civilization.
At this point I can again hear the capitalists screaming: Did not Zuck and Bezos and Musk also work hard and use their brains and invent and innovate?
For sure.
So therefore aren’t they entitled to reap the rewards of their work?
Absolutely. I’m not claiming they aren’t.
But once a person has achieved personal wealth to the level of “billionaire,” where every conceivable material want/need/desire is theirs for the taking a hundred times over, isn’t it fair that at least a little bit of what they make beyond that get reinvested BACK into the society responsible for creating the things that made it possible for them to become insanely rich in the first place?
Call me a godless commie (I’ll gladly embrace the first part of that), but yeah … I think it is.
All this is easy for me to say, of course. I’m not a billionaire faced with having to give up a relatively small portion of my unimaginable wealth.
Talk is cheap (pun intended), so to prove I’m not all talk, I’m very much willing to put my money where my mouth is (pun also intended) and set an example for the super-rich by doing it right.
To that end: Here is the GoFundMe I’ve started with a goal of $1 billion.
Thank you all in advance for contributing.
I think I’ll make a really good billionaire. It won’t be hard: I’ll just operate from the standpoint that I’m a member of the human race on a finite planet with finite resources, spread a good bit of that money around, happily pay my taxes (including the 5% wealth tax) and still have plenty left over for an absurdly extravagant, opulent lifestyle.
In the end, all that money probably won’t make me any happier than I am now. Hell, it might even ruin my life.
But for the good of humanity, it’s a chance I’m willing to take.
Daniel DeLong is currently battling the GoFundMe team over its rule disallowing fundraisers that are “impossible” (Improbable? Yes. Impossible? Technically, no) and isn’t sure if his GoFundMe campaign will still exist by the time this article is published. If it’s not, checks and money orders made out to him can be sent directly to Lookout Santa Cruz. Either way, he fully supports California’s proposed 5% wealth tax on billionaires and vows that he will continue to do so even after he has – thanks to y’all – become one himself.
