If you are worried about that story, it means one of two things. Either 1) you believe that your neighbor has no right to live well at your grandchildren's expense or 2) you believe that your neighbor has that right, but you'd prefer to prevent him from exercising it. In Case 2, I assume you have sufficiently little interest in moral niceties that you wouldn't be reading a column like this one in the first place. That leaves Case 1. But if you believe that your neighbor has no right to live well at the expense of your fabulously wealthy grandchildren, you must also believe that your neighbor has no right to live well at the expense of Bill Gates. In other words, if you're unhappy about the national debt, you should be doubly unhappy about the progressive income tax.
The popular philosophy of income redistribution requires us to transfer income from the few high earners of today, while the popular philosophies of conservation and "fiscal responsibility" require us to transfer income to the many high earners of tomorrow. Those who embrace all these philosophies at once--Bill Clinton comes to mind--have about them at least a mild air of intellectual schizophrenia.
(For a more technical analysis of what we owe to future generations, click.)
TODAY IN SLATE
I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing.
Chief Justice John Roberts Says $1,000 Can’t Buy Influence in Congress. Looks Like He’s Wrong.
After This Merger, One Company Could Control One-Third of the Planet's Beer Sales
Hidden Messages in Corporate Logos
If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter
Giving Up on Goodell
How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.