Congresswoman Sâmia Bomfim, of the Socialism and Liberty Party (sic), recently stated that “billionaires should not exist”. It is an ipsis litteris copy of the angry speech of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Ocasio-Cortez, American leftist radicals.
The motivations for persecuting the rich are varied. It is alleged that billionaires “ignore the hardships of the poor”, that they “invest in futile projects, that “generate additional capital in the financial circle”, that their accumulation of wealth “harms others”, that they “fraudulently enrich themselves”, who “hold undue power” etc.
In painting all billionaires in this macabre outline, it is not surprising that the extreme left condemns them as immoral. Subsequently, the creation of confiscatory taxes is suggested to extinguish his fortune and restore “social justice”.
It is true that one or another rich man owed his fortune to favors obtained from “friends” of the State. Brazil presents emblematic cases of this trickery. However, in the Forbes or Bloomberg list of the richest Brazilians, there are entrepreneurs who have been enormously successful in generating value in spite of the State, which buries their productive activity under a mountain of obstacles, regulations, bureaucracy and taxes.
In the market, power resides with the consumer, not the entrepreneur. The consumer is king, as he determines what he wants to consume and how much he is willing to pay. The one that serves the consumer best generates the most profits. Typically, innovative entrepreneurs deliver 30 to 40 times more value to society than they pocket for themselves in the end. And, before pocketing even a dollar, they must first put their capital at risk, hire personnel, invest in machinery and purchase raw materials, in order to supply a good and cheap product to the masses, which meets precious needs.
It is very different from the almighty political power, based on coercion, which does not need to deliver a product well rated by the citizen. It is often even the opposite. For example, PSOL will have R$ 130 million in electoral funds for this year’s campaign, which could supply 27,000 families with an amount equivalent to Auxílio Brasil. It is money that came out of people’s pockets and that would have been used more reasonably if the choice had been made by each one.
In “Human Action,” Ludwig von Mises explains that a confiscatory tax on billionaires might leave them marginally worse off, but the rest of us are much worse off. It is a good shot in the foot to restrict the activity of the most competent entrepreneurs in meeting the needs of consumers. The confiscated money is no longer used to accumulate more capital, generate more income, employment and demanded products (even if it was invested in the financial market, which indirectly finances productive activity). Production becomes scarcer, important goods become unreachable for the common citizen. And power migrates from the consumer to the politicians.
In a free society, people of all economic backgrounds can accumulate wealth over time. In Brazil, unfortunately, “success is a personal offense” for a long time, as Tom Jobim diagnosed.
Samia doesn’t realize that the iPhone she tweets with, and so many other popular consumer goods, are the result of the initiative, investment and work of billionaires. And that this successful trajectory has created millions of jobs since the arduous foundation of these companies. The deputy emulates villains from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, in which the most productive in society are envied, hated and persecuted.
After all, how many Samias does it take to have the social impact of an Elon Musk?
I have over 8 years of experience in the news industry. I have worked for various news websites and have also written for a few news agencies. I mostly cover healthcare news, but I am also interested in other topics such as politics, business, and entertainment. In my free time, I enjoy writing fiction and spending time with my family and friends.
