The New York Times was enamored by a wealthy European heiress who “Tax Me Now,” in “This Heir To a Fortune Wants it Taken Away for Fairness’ Sake.”
Emma Bubola’s “Saturday profile” piece was a loving piece. It bubbled over with a strong undercurrent sympathy for guilt-ridden leftist economists.
Marlene Engelhorn knew from the moment her grandmother, an extraordinarily wealthy woman, died last month that she wanted the taxman to be her ultimate beneficiary of the huge inheritance.
Ms. Engelhorn is a 30-year old Austrian-born woman who was raised in Vienna. She is part of a growing group of leftist millionaires who want governments to take a larger share of their inherited wealth. They argue that these unearned fortunes should democratically be allocated by the state.
A Times commenter pointed out that “She is free and able to act her views by giving away most of her wealth to her choice, in her instance, the government of today.” Why can’t she just give her fair share to the government treasury, indeed? Redistribution of wealth can only be fair if it is mandated (and we all agree that government is the most efficient steward of resources). ).
To her, Philanthropy only reproduces the same power dynamics that have created systemic inequalities. New tax policies for the super-rich are an essential part of that vision.
Engelhorn was indoctrinated into “the interconnection between racial and economic discrimination” at university.
Bubola captured the unseemly self loathing required to be a proper Lefty these days. However, the reporter downplayed ideological aspects of the heiress’s self-abnegating beliefs.
She began to look for advice and found it in the pro-tax millionaire groups. These members meet in person or via video to discuss their privileges and how to get the state out of them.
Some members refer to the groups, which include Resource Generation or Patriotic Millionaires as a “safe place” where they can talk about their “money story” — an honest account on the true origins of their social status. They admit the many crimes that are often at the root of their family’s wealth, and they analyze the sexist or racist factors that may have contributed to it.
Bubola waited to make some mild criticisms until paragraph 24, which Engelhorn was able to immediately neutralize.
Newspapers mocked some of these groups’ language, calling it self-reverential and sententious. Ms. Engelhorn complained about how some ridiculing press referred to them as “rich children clubs”.
Although a clearly left-leaning economic think tank that advocates tax justice and against extreme wealth was not ideologically labeled but its spokesperson was labeled as an “expert”.
These groups have been helpful to experts who are not part of the millionaire club.
Amy Hanauer, executive director of Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington, said, “I’m really thankful for their voice.” She said that millionaires can be more influential than higher tax advocates.
Engelhorn’s charity appears to be limited to enriching the government coffers and not directly dealing with people who might actually need it.
Numerous people have reached out to Ms. Engelhorn for financial assistance after her numerous radio and TV appearances. Although she said that it hurts her to say no but she believes it shouldn’t be her decision to decide who gets her money.
