We can’t leave it to billionaires like Bezos and Bloomberg to solve the world’s problems | Simon Jenkins

It’s up to government to tax and spend for the good of all, and not the mega-rich seeking a warm glow

So who do you want for president, this “arrogant billionaire” or the other one? You don’t have to be rich to win US elections, but it helps. Michael Bloomberg’s assault on the Democratic party may be an extreme case of wealth attempting to buy power, but, as he implied on Wednesday, if it takes a person of extreme wealth to be rid of Donald Trump, so be it.

At least Bloomberg is running for election. Consider the other now fashionable route to global leadership. Jeff Bezos this week offered to save not just America but “the Earth”, with $10bn of his personal fortune. He followed Bill Gates, who is devoting billions to cure global disease, and Mark Zuckerberg, who in 2015 pledged to put 99% of his winnings into “advancing human potential and reducing inequality”.

A cynical response might note the odium now attaching to the top 1% of wealthiest people. Greed may once have been good. Apple under Steve Jobs gave almost nothing to charity, arguing that charity was what his shareholders could do with their dividends. These gilded ones thought of themselves as “anywheres” in a fragmenting world. They inhabited an artificial land of tax havens, offshore offices and flags of convenience. Presidents danced to their wills. They bought monopoly protection from entire legislatures. They chanted with the notorious New York tycoon Leona Helmsley: “Only the little people pay taxes.”

But as the profits piled ever higher, they began to stink. After you have spent all you can on yourself and your loved ones, humanity beats a moral path to your door. You cannot just shrug and hire another accountant. Besides, over the horizon come the thundering hooves of radical economists such as Thomas Piketty and Robert Reich, rallying politicians to the cause of the other 99%. No one is happy with ever fewer people owning ever more than the rest. Gradually the 1% realised that they were beneficiaries of a giant ripoff.

So we now have a small group of people seeking absolution for their sins. As they take to the hills, they throw gold from their wagons. You want a cure for malaria, a fix for homelessness, an owner for the Washington Post or a saviour for the planet? Just say the word and “my man will see to it”. But there is a bargain to be struck. Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs: let’s hear no more about regulations; forget taxes – they’re what governments waste.

This is the political economy of the middle ages. Then it was the Roman Catholic church and its bishops who were the magnates, claiming sovereignty over states and rulers. To the church went rents, tithes, bribes and fees. From the church came patronage and welfare. It provided jobs, hospitals, schools, hospices, alms and absolutions. It controlled monarchs and principalities. Who needed a state when a munificent church was to hand?

Michael Bloomberg at the Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas
‘In a democracy, the distribution of spare resources should be for elected governments. At least, in some respects, Bloomberg is honouring this principle.’ Bloomberg at the Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas. Photograph: Brian Cahn/ZUMA Wire/REX/Shutterstock

This delegation of social order to one group in society degenerated into conflict. It saw its final nemesis in the thirty years’ war, the most horrific contest Europe experienced before the 20th century. A similar reliance on private charity to meet public welfare was replicated during the industrial revolution, from Robert Owen and Titus Salt to the Carnegies and Rockefellers. It too led to antithesis – to socialism and corporate statism.

The plea of the one percenters has a superficial plausibility. If global corporations can handle budgets bigger than half the states in the United Nations, what is the problem? Surely charity is good, whatever its source. If the source is indeed fiscal theft, at least it is shortcutting the state. Government treasuries should be able to tolerate a few pluralistic distributors of a nation’s surplus wealth. If conventional politics cannot cure diseases, reduce global heating or save newspapers, why not let capitalism try – tax deductible of course.

All history is a pendulum. We are now seeing the 20th century’s social democratic consensus running out of steam. Populists and authoritarians are in the ascendant. Liberalism, as traditionally understood, is in retreat. Conservativism too must re-examine itself through emphasising the local and the communal, not in glorifying the extreme capitalism of the digital age, however atoned by charity.

The status of such charity on this inflated scale is undefined. It is offering, in effect, to relieve governments of their responsibilities of welfare, protection and care, both at home and abroad. Yet charities are notoriously wasteful and inefficient, relying on their perceived goodness to avoid supervision. They are as wildcat as the capitalist enterprises now so eager to sponsor them. Yet they are to be the recipient of billions.

That is why I find uncomfortable the idea of a hoard of surplus cash – secured by dodging taxation, regulation and monopoly control – becoming the private exchequer of a tiny group of very rich to distribute at whim. This is not a matter of politics, but of constitutional propriety. In a democracy, the distribution of spare resources should be for elected governments. At least, in some respects, Bloomberg is honouring this principle: he is seeking election (if he can navigate troublesome Democratic debates and primaries), rather than absolution for expropriation.

Taxes should be raised from all for the good of all, to be allocated through democratic consent. That is how decent societies operate, not by vaguely thinking about what feels good from the comfort of a Californian beach or a yacht moored in Monaco.

• Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist


Simon Jenkins

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
MacKenzie Bezos pledges at least half her wealth to charity
Jeff Bezos’ former wife, known as world’s 22nd richest person with $36.6bn fortune, signs up to the Giving Pledge

Rupert Neate Wealth correspondent

28, May, 2019 @4:27 PM

Article image
Jeff Bezos: world's richest man finally tops list of biggest donors
Bezos, who holds Amazon stock valued at about $137bn, contributed a total of $2bn in 2018

Edward Helmore

26, Feb, 2019 @11:00 AM

Article image
All hail Jeff Bezos the philanthropist! The rest of us will just keep paying our taxes | Marina Hyde
The Amazon founder says giving money away ‘is really hard’. Luckily, poor people do far more of it than he does, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

Marina Hyde

15, Nov, 2022 @2:20 PM

Article image
Why doesn’t Jeff Bezos pay more tax instead of launching a $10bn green fund? | Stefan Stern
Amazon should ensure it pays its dues where it makes its money, says co-author of Myths of Management Stefan Stern

Stefan Stern

18, Feb, 2020 @4:43 PM

Article image
If Jeff Bezos wants to help low-income people why not just pay them better? | Marina Hyde
The Amazon boss’s philanthropy fund flies in the face of the way he treats his workers. Yet he wants to be seen as a messiah, says the Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

Marina Hyde

14, Sep, 2018 @3:23 PM

Article image
Jeff Bezos is on a quest for eternal life – back on Earth, we're searching for Amazon’s taxes | Marina Hyde
The tech overlord is reportedly investing in age-reversal, which means so much more than a fair contribution to the UK’s finances, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde

Marina Hyde

10, Sep, 2021 @1:28 PM

Article image
Wealth of US billionaires rises by nearly a third during pandemic
Report includes Jeff Bezos, whose personal fortune has risen by 65% since 18 March

Rupert Neate

17, Sep, 2020 @5:19 PM

Article image
The Guardian view on Trump’s tax take: only for the little people | Editorial
Editorial: The US president has been exposed as a businessman whose ventures lost so much money he ended up paying less tax to the government than his own working-class supporters


28, Sep, 2020 @5:41 PM

Article image
Think billionaires are just super-rich people? Big mistake | Arwa Mahdawi
The hard realities of extreme wealth – political influence and jaw-dropping inequality – should have us protesting in the streets

Arwa Mahdawi

06, Nov, 2019 @7:00 AM

Article image
The US ultra-rich justify their low tax rates with three myths – all rubbish | Robert Reich
A record share of the nation’s wealth is in the hands of billionaires, who pay a lower tax rate than the average American. This is indefensible

Robert Reich

02, Oct, 2022 @10:15 AM