Scott Sumner's Parenthetical Remark

I see the partial truth in the "Bill Gates essentially taxed" line, but would point out that I am typing this comment on my Mac using the Firefox browser. I've also heard of this operating system called Linux. I have even heard of humans living without a personal computer altogether. While I suppose the disgruntled taxpayer might be able to find a new home in a jurisdiction where the government is less voracious, I can say with some certainty that it will require far more effort and sacrifice than escaping the clutches of MS, which is not necessarily easy. (In full disclosure, I do use Office for Mac and some free A/V plugins from MS. Then again, I did get some readily observable value for my expenditure.)

Tangential

Periodically I remind my Democrat friends that if GM, Ford and Chrysler were run as charities for the benefit of employees (as seems to be the many Democrat's desire) they would move all its jobs to poor countries. UAW should be glad that those companies are run by people trying to make lots of money.

Thanks Arnold, I should clarify that I meant "tax" loosely, as price above marginal cost. No normative judgments intended. I was skeptical about the government's antitrust case, as it depressed the stock prices of Microsoft's consumers. I know that many techies don't like Gates for various reasons, and I am not qualified to say anything on those issues.
I'm with you on the question of who can spend charitable dollars most effectively.

Arnold,

Your argument here would be strengthened if you linked to empirical research that you referenced in your last sentence.

I agree that the overhead costs of gov't bureaucracies and the distributional distortion of lobbying makes government a poor charity. But, then again, I'm a libertarian.

Two nits:

a) Saying Gates "taxed" consumers is not fair - people are free to buy or to not buy his product at their personal discretion. If a citizen refuses to pay taxes, property can be seized or incarceration may result.

b) While I enjoy watching the "rich people vs. the politicians" battle, I am sad that there is no longer a "middle class vs. the politicians" league for me to participate in. Is the middle class just not interested in this sport? Are plasma TVs and cable too much fun?

Were's the contest?

George Soros arguably has more influence in the Democrat party than anyone besides Obama.

And the rich dominate the imagination and activities of most politicians in the political lives. The politicians are dependent on the rich for their very political positions. And you see this reflected in what legislation gets attention in Congress -- and what legislation passes.

In any case, most Senators are extremely rich.

Many Governors are extremely rich.

So this is a battle between different factions of the rich.

Arnold wrote:

"There is a huge contest going on between politicians and rich people over who should get to spend their money."

George Soros arguably has more influence in the Democrat party than anyone besides Obama.

Evidence? The right brings Soros up on a regular basis for obvious reasons. He has lots of money and he is a foreigner to whom we can ascribe 'spooky' motives but is there any evidence that Soros is anything other than a guy with lots of money who likes to comment on politics and commits some of his wealth to Democratic causes (as well as other less partisan causes)?

I'm thinking of this as I recall a rant I heard a few weeks ago from radio gasbag Mike Savage who accused Soros of causing modern antisemitism to increase by shorting the British pound. (The idea being that since an antisemitic idea is that Jews cause financial problems, Jewish people shouldn't play into that by making tooooo much money in the financial markets)