We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Jeff Bezos, Another Super-Rich Liberal

29th July 2012

Half Sigma has an interesting thought.

Jeff Bezos, who is the founder of Amazon.com, donated $2.5 million to support gay marriage.

This is just another reminder that the super-rich are liberals and not conservatives. Which is why I don’t understand why conservatives are so intent on lowering their taxes. Higher taxes for Jeff Bezos means less money for him to donate to left-wing causes.

Ah, if only it were that easy.

The fact is that Jeff Bezos and the Bozos won’t be paying those taxes, no matter how high the rates go, because they have clever lawyers who are connected with clever lobbyists who are connected with corrupt Congressmen and corrupt administration bureaucrats (Hi, Barack!) who, for a mere fraction of what they would pay in increased taxes, will slip a little innocuous-sounding provision into the Internal Revenue Code ensuring that all this punitive taxation just passes them by.

The targets aren’t their fellow super-rich liberals, but rather the up-and-coming entrepreneurs who just might create greater competition for yacht berths at the marina, tee-times at the country club, and reservations at The French Laundry. The latter tend to be pretty clueless about making the necessary defensive political connections (like Microsoft, before it got butt-fucked by the DOJ for not greasing the right palms) and hence are ripe for the plucking. (You’ll have noticed that both Apple and Google have properly funded lobbying and strategic campaign-contribution processes in place.)

No, it’s a pleasant thought, but not realistic. Would that it were.

One Response to “Jeff Bezos, Another Super-Rich Liberal”

  1. Dennis Nagle Says:

    I’m confused.

    On the one hand you say that entrepreneurs should be rewarded and that The Rich should be able to keep all their money, because They Invented That.
    On the other hand, you complain when those self-same entrepreneurs, using the same creativity that got them their millions, manage to avoid paying the taxes that you say are unfair and confiscatory.

    Which is it?

    “the super-rich are liberals and not conservatives” Well, it depends on how you define ‘super-rich’.
    In doing a little analysis of the Forbe’s Richest list, I find:
    Of the 22 top folks, six are ‘liberal’ (Democrats) and twelve are ‘conservative’ (Republicans). The other four are either independent or a-political.
    That works out to a 2:1 ratio of ‘cons’ to ‘libs’.

    The top three are ‘libs': Gates, Buffett, and Ellison.
    The next three are ‘cons': The Koch brothers and Christy Walton.
    Then comes ‘lib’ Soros, and then the next four are ‘cons': Sheldon Adelson and the other three Waltons.
    Then comes ‘libs’ Mike Bloomberg and Bezos.

    So of the top 13, seven are ‘cons’ and six are ‘libs’. Pretty evenly split, with the ‘cons’ having the edge.

    One thing, however, stands out to me: Of the ‘libs’, all of them are self-made; they either started and built a company or they make their money in the financial market by their own wits. In contrast, nine of the twelve ‘cons’ are what I call “caretakers”, meaning they didn’t create their own wealth but rather inherited it; two Kochs, four Waltons, and three Mars.

    Seems like entrepreneurship favors the liberals. Wonder how that sits with the Libertarians?