Bill Koch's Wild West village tells us all we need to know about taxing the rich

It's a simple question: would you prefer lasers or a Wild West gated community?

The Denver Post brings us the news that Bill Koch – one of the Koch brothers, the right-wing billionaires who are trying to buy the American political system as though it were just another corporate acquisition – is recreating a 50-building old West town on his estate.

Nancy Loftholm reports:

There's a new town in Colorado. It has about 50 buildings, including a saloon, a church, a jail, a firehouse, a livery and a train station. Soon, it will have a mansion on a hill so the town's founder can look down on his creation.

But don't expect to move here — or even to visit.

This town is billionaire Bill Koch's fascination with the Old West rendered in bricks and mortar. It sits on a 420-acre meadow on his Bear Ranch below the Raggeds Wilderness Area in Gunnison County. It's an unpopulated, faux Western town that might boggle the mind of anyone who ever had a playhouse. Its full-size buildings come with polished brass and carved-mahogany details and are fronted with board sidewalks and underpinned by a water-treatment system. A locked gate with guards screens who comes and goes.

As Matt Yglesias points out, this is pretty close to the best demonstration of the declining marginal utility of wealth there could be. He writes:

As people get richer and richer, it gets harder and harder to think of cost-effective ways of spending the marginal dollar on amusing yourself. When you take from the rich and give to the poor, you end up generating a lot of extra welfare as people who don't have very much can have their lives greatly improved at relatively low cost.

Money is literally more useful in the hands of the poor than in the hands of billionaires. If someone is struggling to afford enough food to survive, you can vastly improve the quality of their life by giving them enough money to buy a loaf of bread. But while it's possible to imagine that life gets noticeably better when you trade your first class plane tickets for a private jet, the amount of money it requires to get that improvement could make an equivalent difference in the lives of many more people who can't afford air travel.

This is basically the justification for progressive taxation. At a certain – relatively low – level, the discrepancy in marginal utility of income is high enough that it is prima facie just to redistribute. If a marginal pound can do 100 times as much good in the pockets of someone on the minimum wage than in the pockets of someone on £1m a year, then there needs to be a very good reason why it shouldn't be transferred from one to the other.

Thankfully for the millionaires, there is: incentives. The amount of wealth in the world at this very moment isn't the only important thing to take into account; the other is where extra wealth is going to come from.

The facile claim that lies at the heart of the Laffer curve is that, if marginal tax rates are 100 per cent, people won't bother working. So if we try to apply our naïve redistributionism to the real world, we would end up taking most of the wealth of the developed world and sending it overseas, which would most likely end up in the global economy shutting down; not the best outcome for anyone.

If we just ended there, the analysis would be little deeper than the most thought-free attacks on socialism.

But in fact, there is more to say, thanks, again, to the Koch brothers. Just as they demonstrate the existence of declining marginal utility of wealth, they also demonstrate the existence of motivations for work beyond mere wages.

The Kochs don't work for money: they work for influence. Money is a useful means to that end, and it can also enable them to build crazy villages on their estates. But anyone looking at their actions can infer what they really want.

Similarly, do you think Richard Branson would stop Bransoning around (it's a verb now, look it up) if he made less money doing so? Or is he interested in fame, adventures and prestige projects as much as he is in earning his salary?

This is the reasoning behind the French finance minister's announcement two months ago of a potential salary cap for the country's state-owned companies, which include EDF, Areva and SNCF.

Certainly, no one questions the advantage of a salary cap when it comes to the very specific sector of "being a politician"; for all the acknowledgement that we need to attract the best candidates, it is understood that people become MPs for reasons beyond a desire for a good paycheck.

So why not cap salaries? Or, if that's too much, why not copy the lead of the 1974 government, and introduce an effective top rate of 98 per cent – a cap in all but name.

Such a cap would have a number of positive side-effects, including reducing inequality and ending the distortionary effect the "super-rich" can have on a community, but the main advantage it could have depends greatly on how organisations respond to it. If the wage-pool of the top executives were reduced tenfold, that money could be redistributed to other workers, which would be great, or it could be hoarded, which would be not so great.

But there is a third possibility. Yglesias suggests that extremely high marginal tax rates – which fill the same role as salary caps – were responsible for Bell Labs, the famous corporate R&D department which developed, amongst other things, radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser and UNX. [He wrtml):

If you're a corporate executive and you know that 90% of any additional income that you pay yourself is going to go to the federal government, suddenly using the corporate account to buy yourself fun new toys instead looks like an appealing alternative. And what could be more fun than a giant wacky research lab!

And presented as a choice like that, it suddenly becomes a whole lot less clear that high tax rates, at the very top end, are such a bad thing. Crazy gated Wild West vanity project, or lasers? I know what I choose.

Welcome to the Wild West. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.