18 Super-Rich Families Funding Repeal of Estate Tax

[Nbadan]

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1xa8h/motd/sm/wealthy.jpg
Working for my base

Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Sabrina Eaton
Plain Dealer Bureau


Washington -- Eighteen of America's wealthiest families, including the Timkens of Canton, are bankrolling efforts to permanently repeal estate taxes that would save their families a total of $71.6 billion, according to a report released Tuesday by public interest groups.

Groups funded by the super-rich have engaged in a deceptive campaign to convince the public that estate taxes cause widespread problems for small businesses and family farms when they actually affect about one in 370 estates, said the report released by Public Citizen and Boston-based United for a Fair Economy.

This year, all assets under $2 million for individuals and under $4 million for couples are exempt from estate taxes. Current tax law will boost those exemptions to $3.5 million and $7 million in 2009, eliminate the estate tax in 2010, and reimpose it in 2011 with a $1 million exemption.

The House voted to permanently repeal the estate tax last year, but the measure stalled in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to override filibusters. Majority Leader Bill Frist says he will bring the bill up in May...


COMMON DREAMS (http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0425-04.htm)

Public Citizen, UFE Expose Stealth Campaign of Super-Wealthy to Repeal Federal Estate Tax
Report Identifies 18 Families Behind Campaign


WASHINGTON - APRIL 25 - The multimillion- dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.

It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.

The report, available at http://www.citizen.org , profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell's soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third- largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world's largest retailer.

These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind -- the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.

In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.

"This report exposes one of the biggest con jobs in recent history," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "This long-running, secretive campaign funded by some of the country's wealthiest families has relied on deception to bamboozle the public not only about who must pay the estate tax, but about how repealing it will affect the country."

Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/268001_estatetaxes26.html)

[RobinsontoDuncan]

counting down to xray saying this is all one big liberal gimmick and using the input of lay people (bloggers) to back up his claims in 5....4...3...2...

[Frank Brickowski]

Dan I take it your position is that those who are successful in a lifetime of hard work should give Uncle Sam half of their wealth because they had the misfortune of dying? Because being taxed at the highest rate when the income was earned just wasn't good enough?

The death tax is the embodiment of socialism. They have more, therefore, we need to take as much as possible and "redistribute" it to those poor souls who have little.

[Sec24Row7]

Nevermind the fact that it costs the governement as almost as much to collect the tax as the tax generates making it almost a wash.

[Sec24Row7]

"And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability."

Bullshit!

I could names dozens of ranches that had to be broken up and sold to pay estate taxes down here.

That is such a fucking lie, jesus.

[Vashner]

When you buy stuff you pay taxes. Why let the government Tax it twice?

You buy a car you pay huge state sales tax, road taxes, inspection tolls etc.

THEN they want to tax it's whole value again? And it was forced to be insured..

Typical fucking liberals....

I don't see a single rich liberal give up there Italian Villas and Private islands for the poor....

[xrayzebra]

counting down to xray saying this is all one big liberal gimmick and using the input of lay people (bloggers) to back up his claims in 5....4...3...2...

Okay, here I am and yes it is a bunch of crap. Tax a
man and his wealth his whole life and then take the rest
after he dies. Really, really nice and fair isn't it.

I don't need a blogs or anything else. Common sense just
tells you a man works for his family, not the friggin
government. Unless you are a Kennedy and then you have
a way to protect all the family fortune, which you didn't work
a day to earn. Just the old man and his bootleggin' empire.
:elephant

[Yonivore]

Good for the 18. George Soros pretty much had to fund the Democratic Party all on his own in the last two election cycles.

[spurster]

I could names dozens of ranches that had to be broken up and sold to pay estate taxes down here.
Name a few then. I'm curious.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Just another reminder that it is all about the Benjamins and how much the fat cats can keep in their pockets. :cuss

[boutons_]

Often the kids don't simply want to work ranch of their parents, don't want to maintain the building and land, pay annual taxes on it.

They've moved into the city to service jobs, rather than the estate taxes forcing the sale. The sell they ranch because they don't want it, and the estate taxes get paid.

[exstatic]

The repeal of the estate tax pushed us towards becomeing Mexico: a country dominated by 1% that own EVERYTHING. The estate tax is nothing more than a gentle redistribution of the wealth of DEAD people.

[JoeChalupa]

Dead Presidents.

[Yonivore]

The repeal of the estate tax pushed us towards becomeing Mexico: a country dominated by 1% that own EVERYTHING. The estate tax is nothing more than a gentle redistribution of the wealth of DEAD people.
So, we can come split up your dead relatives things?

[Frank Brickowski]

Wow Exstatic I thought it was the 11 million + immigrants that was making this country become like Mexico. Thanks for setting me straight, I had no idea it was because the estate tax threshold was raised.

[Nbadan]

Wow Exstatic I thought it was the 11 million + immigrants that was making this country become like Mexico. Thanks for setting me straight, I had no idea it was because the estate tax threshold was raised.

No one likes more taxes, but the $1 million exception was more than enough to protect most family farms. I know if I'm inheriting 1 million + in property, I don't mind ponying up a few bucks in taxes since I can always make it back by reinvesting the balance if I decide to sell, or simply holding on to the land and letting it appreciate.

These 18 super rich families backing the repeal of the estate tax are just greedy fucks, who don't so much care about the money as much as they care about the power that comes with having more and more money.

[Sec24Row7]

No one likes more taxes, but the $1 million exception was more than enough to protect most family farms. I know if I'm inheriting 1 million + in property, I don't mind ponying up a few bucks in taxes since I can always make it back by reinvesting the balance if I decide to sell, or simply holding on to the land and letting it appreciate.

These 18 super rich families backing the repeal of the estate tax are just greedy fucks, who don't so much care about the money as much as they care about the power that comes with having more and more money.


That's just great dan. You obviously have never had money or land. How is someone who inherits a 3 million dollar piece of property going to pay the 40% estate tax on the value of the land if all they get is the property?

They are going to have to sell. You may say... Gee... well they got the money they should be happy... Yeah... families that have lived on that land for 150 years are going to be REALLY happy that they get a little over 1.5 million bucks and have to go move and change their lifestyle so the government gets their piece.

In south Texas, because of recreational value of the property, the land many places is worth about 50 times what you can make in a GOOD year running cattle. There is just no way that many of these people can keep the land.

[101A]

It's not the land...it's the small businesses.

I know a local family business that two sons went to work in; it was succesfull & valuable; the founder built the business, but there wasn't alot of cash in it; IRS valued it at 4.5 milliion - and the tax on that, along with the rest of the old-man's estate was 2.3.

Dude was a smoker 7 didn't have a big life insurance policy. Boys worked in the business, helped build the business, but had to sell the business to pay the taxes. Both lost their jobs, and had to sign a contract to not open up a competitive company. Yeah, they have some cash - but not nearly enough to retire on, and once thriving small business has been merged into a larger national outfit, and an additional 20 jobs have been lost.

The old-man was short-sighted, and should have had a big life insurance policy to pay the taxes (hey, Dan, how's it feel to be on the same side of this issue as "Big Insurance" - because they are funding what there is of the anti-death tax argument), but he got sick suddenly and kicked - lost his life, his company, and his family's security he had worked his life to try to ensure.

[xrayzebra]

No one likes more taxes, but the $1 million exception was more than enough to protect most family farms. I know if I'm inheriting 1 million + in property, I don't mind ponying up a few bucks in taxes since I can always make it back by reinvesting the balance if I decide to sell, or simply holding on to the land and letting it appreciate.

These 18 super rich families backing the repeal of the estate tax are just greedy fucks, who don't so much care about the money as much as they care about the power that comes with having more and more money.

Can you or anyone else explain to me why people (families) should not
be allowed to keep what they have earned? For God's sake, they made
it not the friggin government. Re-distribution, what a laugh. Waste
is more like it. :depressed

[Extra Stout]

Can you or anyone else explain to me why people (families) should not
be allowed to keep what they have earned? For God's sake, they made
it not the friggin government. Re-distribution, what a laugh. Waste
is more like it. :depressed
The distinction here is between personal earnings and family earnings. America "nominally" has a meritocratic ethic, that is, that the individuals who accomplish the most should do the best. Inherited wealth has nothing to do with individual merit, but rather with the merit of one's ancestors.

One might reply that a successful individual should be able to decide who his heirs will be. One can argue that, but then must also realize that wealth is the best and easiest way to create more wealth, such that a pattern of inheritance concentrates increasing amounts of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer families.

[xrayzebra]

The distinction here is between personal earnings and family earnings. America "nominally" has a meritocratic ethic, that is, that the individuals who accomplish the most should do the best. Inherited wealth has nothing to do with individual merit, but rather with the merit of one's ancestors.

One might reply that a successful individual should be able to decide who his heirs will be. One can argue that, but then must also realize that wealth is the best and easiest way to create more wealth, such that a pattern of inheritance concentrates increasing amounts of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer families.

Now that is some essay on what? Someone made the damn money and
it wasn't the damn politicians. A person within the family made it and
paid taxes while they were making it and no one is entitled to it except
who he wants to inherit it. He wants to leave it to government, fine, he
wants to leave it to his lover, fine. He wants his family to have it fine.
It is what he earned. Either through his efforts as a worker or
investor. You and the public are not entitled to it......you and I are
the government, stupid.

[Extra Stout]

Now that is some essay on what? Someone made the damn money and
it wasn't the damn politicians. A person within the family made it and
paid taxes while they were making it and no one is entitled to it except
who he wants to inherit it. He wants to leave it to government, fine, he
wants to leave it to his lover, fine. He wants his family to have it fine.
It is what he earned. Either through his efforts as a worker or
investor. You and the public are not entitled to it......you and I are
the government, stupid.
Certainly over the course of human history, it has been done as you say. And in most of the world outside the wealthy industrialized nations, it is done exactly as you say.

The argument against "double taxation" doesn't hold water. I pay income tax, and then when I buy something with what's left, I pay sales tax, too. If I buy a car, well then, even after I buy it, I pay taxes on it every year to keep it registered. That's triple taxation.

Indeed one could argue that people who accumulate wealth through their work and savings should have sole authority to determine where that money goes when they die. Passing that money onto their children opens a lot of doors for them. They'll have the money to get the best education, the best job opportunities starting out, they'll have the capital right at hand to start their own business ventures, they'll be able to affird the best financial people to manage their money and put it in the right investments to make even more money. Who wouldn't want that for their children?

Of course, it does mean that in such a society, most of the best opportunities for education, and jobs, and starting businesses, and investments, and making even more money will go to the children of rich people, and then to their children. This is pretty much how the United States operated until WW2. So, I cannot say that your views are somehow off the wall or out of left field, since our country functioned with them for its first 170 or so years. There is no shortage of people who think it was a better country back then.

[Nbadan]

Indeed one could argue that people who accumulate wealth through their work and savings should have sole authority to determine where that money goes when they die. Passing that money onto their children opens a lot of doors for them. They'll have the money to get the best education, the best job opportunities starting out, they'll have the capital right at hand to start their own business ventures, they'll be able to affird the best financial people to manage their money and put it in the right investments to make even more money. Who wouldn't want that for their children?

Nice job Stout, but don't forget about access and opportunity. If your the son or daughter of Donald Trump, Warren Buffet or even Shaq-daddy, the movers-and-shakers in the financial and capital venture markets are gonna take a much more serious look at your business ventures than if you have no property or wealth.

I saw an interview with multi-billionaire Warren Buffet's grand-daughter, he is funding their way through what-ever college they want to go to, but after that the money stops and they get no inheritance. Why? because they shouldn't need it. They have his name, his access, his power.

[Sec24Row7]

Yeah, that's great Dan.

Power doesn't pay the electric bill.

[spurster]

Another problem with the "double/multiple taxation" argument is that the wealthy also take advantage of the loopholes in the tax system. I would guess that a lot of that money hasn't even been taxed once yet.

I would agree though that the estate tax (before the recent changes) was unfair. The high percentage was basically a holdover of high income tax percentages combined with gaping loopholes. Also, the thresholds weren't updated for inflation. Why not just increase the threshold (say to $10M) and then index it to inflation? I would think that would be sufficient for the poor farmers and small businesses.

[Sec24Row7]

Why should the really rich have to pay when everyone else doesn't?

[velik_m]

http://www.iriveramerica.com/news/mmp/images/Hilton_Sisters.jpg

"Don't take away our dadies money, we earned it!"

[sickdsm]

Peopld liike to bitch about wal-mart but i'm all about that. Tearing down those that are successful is a trademark of thirdworld countries.

For estate taxes, the reason they don't show examples is that it doesn't force the sale right away, it makes it a struggle so it ends up being a few years down the line, starting out is the hardest thing to do for farming/ranching. That's commen sense. those that disagree with that aren't stupid, there just liberals trying to find a way to prove there skewed logic.

[Nbadan]

Did you see this?


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - America may still think of itself as the land of opportunity, but the chances of living a rags-to-riches life are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world, according to a new study published on Wednesday.

The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent, according to "Understanding Mobility in America," a study by economist Tom Hertz from American University.

By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said.

"In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family," he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2628&ncid=2628&e=13&u=/nm/20060426/us_nm/economy_mobility_dc)

Your dad's job determines your future. Keep that one in mind.

[xrayzebra]

Gee, dan, was yours rich or poor?

[Yonivore]

So, 78% of rich kids don't stay wealthy -- indicating the wealth is moved to others -- while 99% of poor kids stay in with the 95 percentile where the rest of us live. Imagine that.

Oddly enough, they don't explain if those 99% remain poor or maybe just end up somewhere outside the top 5%.

Let's focus on this quote -- which Dan chose to highlight:


"In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family," he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work.
Actually, that's an incorrect statement. What should have been said is this; "In other words, the chances of staying rich are about 20 times higher than becoming rich."

That is a more reasonable statement...and, quite frankly, one that surprises me. It seem the wealthy take considerable risks in that 78% of them are losing their wealth.

[Frank Brickowski]

Dan and his ilk just want to be able take more from those that they deem to have more and "redistribute" it to the poor downtrodden souls of America. Understandable because the social programs of the last fifty years have worked so well (sw). It really is too bad that those on the left cannot grasp the dependant class they have created.

[xrayzebra]

^^Oh, they know about the dependant class and they love them to DEATH.
They know their dumb programs don't work, but it doesn't matter, they tried and
will keep on trying, we (the taxpayer) just needs to pay more taxes so they can
spend more money on the failed programs. They (the Libs) care, they feel their
pain. So if they care, that is all that matters, don't you see?

[Frank Brickowski]

I know, it has and will always be about the votes. Maybe some day in the future more of community living on the government dole will see the fraud that has been perpetrated upon them and do something about it.

[Nbadan]

Dan and his ilk just want to be able take more from those that they deem to have more and "redistribute" it to the poor downtrodden souls of America. Understandable because the social programs of the last fifty years have worked so well (sw). It really is too bad that those on the left cannot grasp the dependant class they have created.

:rolleyes

Yeah, wealth redistribution led to the creation of the most dominant middle-class of all developed countries, but this is a bad thing. Much better to be led by a lineage of silver-spoon sociopaths who have no empathy for the common man.

[Nbadan]

I know, it has and will always be about the votes. Maybe some day in the future more of community living on the government dole will see the fraud that has been perpetrated upon them and do something about it.

Yeah, like Republican elk like yourself who vote for even more corporate welfare in the face of record profits.

[Frank Brickowski]

Dan,

I want to get this straight. What you are saying is that the creation of the income tax system ultimately resulted in the most dominant middle class in the world by taxing those with higher incomes? It had nothing to do the hard work of those very same people? Or how about the capitalistic system that rewards education and hard work?

And for the record I never voted for more corporate welfare. Nor do I understand what is wrong with corporate profits. I always thought the object was to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. I know my 401K depends on these corporations trying to maximize profits. And I know I'm not alone or an elitist in this regard.

[Nbadan]

Dan,

I want to get this straight. What you are saying is that the creation of the income tax system ultimately resulted in the most dominant middle class in the world by taxing those with higher incomes? It had nothing to do the hard work of those very same people? Or how about the capitalistic system that rewards education and hard work?

And for the record I never voted for more corporate welfare. Nor do I understand what is wrong with corporate profits. I always thought the object was to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. I know my 401K depends on these corporations trying to maximize profits. And I know I'm not alone or an elitist in this regard.

Without wealth redistribution wealth will concentrate into fewer and fewer hands. Already in the U.S. the top 5% of the population owns 90% of the wealth. Slaves worked hard too, but hardly made anything.

As I've written before, your father's occupation has a closer association with whether you will be wealthy than how much education you get or how many hours you work. Does that mean it doesn't happen at all? No, but statistically speaking, if your father's rich, your more likely to be rich than it is for a poor man to become rich in the U.S...

[Nbadan]

A poster in another forum explains that if was what he terms 'regulated capitalism' and not socialism, as some term Roosevelt's new deal, that transformed America's Middle class...


It is NOT capitalism that created the greatest middle class in history.

It is REGULATED capitalism that created the greatest middle class in history. The New Deal is what created the American Dream. The New Deal is not socialism, as the right wing would claim; it is regulated capitalism. Yes, it redistributes some wealth, as in socialism, but it does not nationalize all wealth nor share all assets equally. The greatness of the New Deal lies in the fact that it, for the first time in American, perhaps in world, history, leveled the playing field for those not born to affluence.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, per se, in my opinion, but it must be regulated. Left unchecked, it becomes a destructive force, and quickly polarizes society into the rich and the poor. Wealth in an unregulated capitalist system tends to become more and more concentrated in fewer hands; wealth generates wealth. It becomes very difficult for someone without wealth to acquire it.

Never forget what Andrew Mellon said about the Great Depression: that it was simply the money returning to its rightful owners. The very wealthy did not suffer unduly from the Great Depression. Most called FDR a class traitor for imposing the New Deal on their formerly-unregulated larceny. (The top income tax rate was nearly 90% for a short time; this provided a very-badly-needed influx of money into the Federal treasury.) The neocons, today's descendants of those robber barons and inheritors of their legacy, despise the New Deal and everything it stands for. They will stop at nothing to complete its destruction, even if they have to bankrupt the U.S. economy to do it.

Without some form of regulation of capitalism, without controls on corporations and reins on the robber barons, you cannot have a large and thriving middle class.

Lest we forget that this almost led to a military coup. Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government modelled after Mussolini's regime in Italy. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.

[xrayzebra]

A poster in another forum explains that if was what he terms 'regulated capitalism' and not socialism, as some term Roosevelt's new deal, that transformed America's Middle class...



Lest we forget that this almost led to a military coup. Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government modelled after Mussolini's regime in Italy. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.


The second world war made America's middle class. Not
Roosevelt. His social programs are causing many problems
today for the U.S. And thank God he didn't get his way
with the Supreme court.

[sickdsm]

Maybe dan forgot what every father and every immigrant who came to america has ever dreamed about, at least legal ones.

The want to have a better life for their kids.


The fuck if i'm busting my ass at 26 so i when i die and can help your lazy ass, crack addicted brothers and sisters. I'm doing it for the kids i don't have yet.

Its a shame if that means they turn into Nicole Ritchie or the Gotti boys but its there right.

Hell, lets make some new laws.

Really hot hookers have to give freebies away
Gorgeous strippers have to have a happy hour, where patrons use monopoly money
Reigning NBA champs have every game as part of a back to back
The conservatives on this board have to give you an education on society.

Damn, that last one is pretty much a law here now isn't it?

I'd love to stay and chat but i need to get back to work, on a sunday, after 6 pm, so i can hand over a few more bucks to all those Katrina losers without a job STILL for some unknown reason.

[xrayzebra]

The following says alot about America and capitalism.


Caring vs. uncaring

By Walter E. Williams

May 10, 2006

George Orwell admonished, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." That's what I want to do -- talk about the obvious, starting with the question: What human motivation leads to the most wonderful things getting done?

How about the charity and selflessness we've seen from people like Mother Teresa? What about the ceaseless and laudable work of organizations like the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity and Salvation Army? What about the charitable donations of rich Americans, to use the silly phrase, who've given something back?

While the actions of these people and their organizations are laudable, results motivated by charity and selflessness pale in comparison to other motives behind getting good things done. Let's look at it.

In December 1999, Stephen Moore and Julian L. Simon wrote an article titled "The Greatest Century That Ever Was," published by the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute. In it they report: Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 30 years; annual deaths from major killer diseases such as tuberculosis, polio, typhoid, whooping cough and pneumonia fell from 700 to fewer than 50 per 100,000 of the population; agricultural workers fell from 41 to 2.5 percent of the workforce; household auto ownership rose from one to 91 percent; household electrification rose from 8 to 99 percent; controlling for inflation, household assets rose from $6 trillion to $41 trillion between 1945 and 1998. These are but a few of the wonderful things that have occurred during the 20th century.

Returning to my initial question: What human motivation accounts for the accomplishment of these and many other wonderful things? The answer should be obvious. It was not accomplished by people's concern for others but by people's concern for themselves. In other words, it's people seeking more for themselves that has produced a better life for all Americans.

Take a minor example. I think it's wonderful that Idaho potato farmers get up early in the morning to toil in the fields, which results in Walter Williams in Pennsylvania enjoying potatoes. Does anyone think they make that sacrifice because they care about me? They might hate me, but they make sure that I enjoy potatoes because they care about and want more things for themselves.

What about all those people who've invented and marketed machines that do everything from diagnosing illnesses to controlling air flight? Were they basically motivated by a concern for others, or were they mostly concerned with their own well-being?

One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one's fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him. Many of the wonderful achievements of the 20th century were the result of the pursuit of profits. Unfortunately, demagoguery has led to profits becoming a dirty word. Nonprofit is seen as more righteous, particularly when people pompously stand before us and declare, "We're a nonprofit organization."

Profit is cast in a poor light because people don't understand the role of profits. Profit is a payment to entrepreneurs just as wages are payments to labor, interest to capital and rent to land. In order to earn profits in free markets, entrepreneurs must identify and satisfy human wants in a way that economizes on society's scarce resources.

Here's a little test. Which entities produce greater consumer satisfaction: for-profit enterprises such as supermarkets, computer makers and clothing stores, or nonprofit entities such as public schools, post offices and motor vehicle departments? I'm guessing you'll answer the former. Their survival depends on pleasing ordinary people, as opposed to the latter, whose survival is not so strictly tied to pleasing people.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that self-interest and the free market system produce perfect outcomes, but they're the closest we'll come to perfection here on Earth.

Since 1980, Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/05/10/196682.html

[DarkReign]

^ pretty good.