By: Jože Biščak
For Slovenian leftists, who are constantly looking for ways to squeeze as much as possible out of people’s hard-earned money and keep inventing new taxes, primarily targeting the more successful and productive, the result of the referendum in Switzerland is something incomprehensible. People from the land of melted cheese and William Tell rejected, by a large majority (79 percent), the proposal of the Young Socialists of Switzerland (JUSO) to tax the wealthy more heavily and use the collected money to fight “climate change.”
According to the proposal, also supported by the Socialists and the Greens, a 50 percent federal tax on wealth and inheritance exceeding 50 million Swiss francs (€53.6 million) would be introduced. The Swiss Free Democratic Party (FDP), which opposed the proposal, said this would not be a tax at all but armed robbery. In recent referendums, the Swiss have also rejected proposals on a minimum wage, a guaranteed income, and an extension of mandatory paid leave. In Slovenia, something like this could not happen, because the envy that Marxists have instilled in citizens with the help of the media would do its job: regardless of the fact that such taxation would mean a transfer of wealth abroad, the prevailing mindset would simply be that it is better for everyone to be equally poor than to have successful and wealthy people in their surroundings. According to the populist rhetoric of progressives, rich people have a negative impact on society and the democratic order, so as much as possible should be taken from them and their earnings redistributed.
The truth is that the wealthy have a positive impact on society; they are a positive factor. Democracies are in fact threatened by demagogues who are incapable of creating wealth themselves. They poison the masses and inflame emotions into political passions. Thus, in Slovenia, the prevailing belief is that the poor or less well-off toil for peanuts, while the rich bask and relax at their expense. Put differently: if the wealthier did not exploit others, they could not afford to enjoy themselves. Setting aside these socialist absurdities, let us instead look at the important and decisive role the rich play in the development of goods that are now accessible even to people on minimum wage.
Television is a typical example. How did its use spread? A hundred years ago, it was a dream to bring moving images into the home. Mechanical television receivers were developed, but fewer than 7,000 were sold. Because these first televisions were very expensive, only the very rich could afford them. However, the picture quality was very poor, and production was abandoned. Almost simultaneously, the cathode-ray tube was invented: the picture was better, and the message from wealthy buyers to manufacturers was clear – now we are satisfied. Mass production began, prices fell steeply (the first sets cost around $1,000, which would be more than $10,000 today), and soon every household could afford one. Today it seems self-evident that we have television sets; in fact, “having a television” has almost become a “human right.” The same applies to radios, cars, mobile phones (not to mention iPhones), and everything that is now accessible to everyone, even people in poor African or Asian countries.
The response of the wealthy, who with every innovation take on the role of early testers, thus enables manufacturers to determine what demand for a product will be like. This allows them, says Eamonn Butler, director of the London-based Adam Smith Institute, to abandon misguided products before they are sold on a mass scale. In this way they also avoid unnecessary losses: “Such experience of the wealthy as pioneer consumers benefits everyone. Most new products are considered luxury items when they enter the market – because a mass market has not yet been established, they are produced in small quantities and at high cost. That is why the wealthiest people buy and test them.”
This is why countries such as Switzerland, which has many wealthy and successful people, are themselves wealthy. In contrast to Slovenia, where successful and prosperous entrepreneurs are punished for their success.
