Wealth

With not a hint of irony, the Wall Street Journal editorial page (subs. req'd) is concerned about the influence on society that comes with having huge amounts of wealth -- in the context of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, now further beefed up by Warren Buffett's money:

We'd also note that the foundations he [Buffett] is donating to may well become "dynasties" in their own right. In addition to his Gates Foundation gift, Mr. Buffett also said he will give major donations well north of $1 billion each to separate foundations run by his three children and another in the name of his late wife. These gifts, too, will be shielded from taxation and will allow his heirs to wield power and influence long after the 75-year-old has gone to his just reward. With their tax-sheltered assets, modern foundations have no expiration date and have become hugely important players in policy debates, the culture and even politics.

Ironic because the WSJ, which staunchly opposes just about any tax, including the "death" tax (estate/inheritance) would have no problem with the descendants having access to exactly the same amount of money as an untaxed inheritance. But somehow, when it's a foundation, which sounds suspiciously touchy-feely, it's a problem. And there's more:

But since giving free advice is our business, we'd suggest that they put at least a smidgen of their money back into strengthening the foundations of the free-market system that has allowed them to become so fabulously rich. There's something to be said for reinvesting in the moral capital of a free society and trying to sustain and export free-enterprise policies.

This is only a hop, skip and jump to the philosophical case for taxation -- that even rich people, who've convinced themselves that they made it "on their own", couldn't have done so without the institutions that the state provides. But this logic goes AWOL when the Journal does its usual editorial fulminations about the taxation system. Anyway, a few sentences later:

On that score we were encouraged by a report this week that the Gateses thanked Mr. Buffett for his gift by presenting him with a book from their personal library: Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."

Now given the WSJ's view that the Gates foundation should be voluntarily funding certain of their pet causes, let's see what the great Glasgow man would have said:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Indeed.

UPDATE: Jonathan Chait at The Plank points out that the WSJ also seems confused about what a foundation is.