It has been argued, from both sides of the political aisle, that escalating taxes on the rich serves as a disincentive to true innovation. The fact is, for the great innovators, money rarely played a role, and was, in many respects, simply a welcome by-product.
Consider Bill Gates. Certainly he spent an enormous amount of time and effort in creating the vision he had of a personal computer system available to all. It is hard for anyone to begrudge his success; it is truly the American dream. He possessed the intellect and will power to make something happen, and was somewhat fortunate that it was at the exact time that what he could provide the world was hungry for. For all his effort, the recent issue of Forbes puts his net worth at 40 billion, and that is down 18 billion from the year before. Certainly worthy of every accolade he receives.
But would Mr. Gates have worked less hard if he stood to gain only, say, 20 billion? Would he have taken more vacations, or done less research if he were only to make 10 billion? What if it was only 1 billion?
The great innovators are passionate about a concept or belief. They are willing to dedicate their lives to it, the great majority never reaching even a fraction of what Bill Gates has achieved.
To lower the scale a bit, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook (an idea that may have been stolen and resulted in a 65 million dollar settlement), was worth 1.5 billion in 2008, and as a result of the recession, saw that number drop to under 1 billion in 2009. When someone is worth that type of money, what difference does ½ billion make? If he so desires, he could never spend a day working again in his lifetime, never mind his children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes. The original goal was not to become insanely rich, but simply develop a platform for college students to communicate. Zuckerberg and his fellow students were not motivated by money, but simply excited by something new, a great innovation.
Making it more difficult to accumulate wealth, and thus easier for the general public to maintain a basic standard of living, will greatly increase the “innovation pool.” If we were to institute a rising tax scale that increased with income, and then, dare I say it, “re-distribute wealth” to the lower classes, the amount of great thinkers that would have the additional time and resources to develop these great ideas would increase. The creator of the next Facebook very well might be a middle aged man struggling with 2 jobs to provide healthcare for his family that will never see the time necessary to see his ideas reach fruition. And this has not gone unnoticed by those ready to take advantage of the situation. Today we are flooded with predatory “invention” companies charging fees to “patent” the ideas of those without the resources to make the most of them.
Truly great innovation is not motivated by the desire to get rich. In fact, most great minds never do achieve great wealth, despite the corporations they are working for seeing significant gains off their efforts. Great innovation is inspired by great curiosity, the desire of thinkers to explore the possibilities of building on the research of those before them. For insane amounts of wealth to end up in the hands of so few stifles the real possibilities that do exist, yet are hidden beneath the enormous cost of even a basic living.
2 comments:
When you put it that way, it's hard to find fault with that. I think you are very correct in your assessment of the motivation of innovators.
Still, I think there are primary goals and secondary goals. I think when Gates started microsoft, and Zuckerberg crated facebook, their original intentions were to create a useful product. Once they have that product, the secondary goal is make money on it. And you are absolutely right, that the truly passionate thinkers would be just as satisfied changing the world without the money and recognition, but I think that chance for success, like being a rockstar or professional athlete is what drives a person to endure the long and difficult task of developing the product, be it software, music, or athletic ability.
Considering a country like Canada, that actually uses the very sliding scale you suggest, the country is largely dependent on consumption. Lots of innovation comes out of Asia, but the government grooms people to become innovators. So it would seem the free market system is the best chance for a self starter to get his innovation public.
But we do indeed need to make it so that the people who have benfitted most from the system give back to the system so that we may provide the necessary resources to inspire more innovation as you suggest. I think Obama's tax bracket accomlishes this, but I guess people get greedy when their rich, and feel like they earned their own money so everyone else can go scratch. I suppose once you get to the top, its hard to remember where you came from...
I believe the current tax system is still flawed, quite frankly, it does not tax enough. 39% over $250,000.00 is fine, but keep going. 42% over $500,000.00, $45% over $1,000,000.00 etc., and then remove the cap on social security. Lets solve the issues now. It is simple logic that those that have benefited most from our class system pay back the most.
Post a Comment