Great article, great comment by Drew and something that should be easily refuted.  But it makes sense to Marxists who believe that inventory, costs and demand are all created by the manufacturer and these ‘hoarder’ companies should not have any extra money.

FEBRUARY 26, 2013

IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010, I WROTE “They’ll be going after ‘hoarders and wreckers’ next.”

And now this: In Connecticut, a “Hoarder’s Tax.” “Rep. Betsy Ritter, a Waterford Democrat, not only has sponsored a “combined reporting” bill, but she has also proposed a hoarder’s tax. This would place a levy on liquid assets — companies with a lot of money in the bank — and dedicate the proceeds to job creation programs.”

Gee, I wonder why businesses are fleeing the northeast?

UPDATE: Reader Dan Tracy writes:

If they are going this route, why not then go after university endowments?

I’m sure an annual assessment (1%? 2%, etc.) on the likes of Harvard’s, Yale’s, or Stanford’s endowment could do a lot to help underprivileged youngsters in nearby school districts. For example, East Palo Alto is a poor community in the Silicon Valley area and tapping into Stanford’s endowment could do a lot of good.

There are a lot of poor kids in the shadow of pretty much every well-endowed university. This is actually in motionalready.

Meanwhile, reader Drew Kelley thinks the Hoarder’s Text sounds familiar: “Isn’t that the same as FDR’s tax on undistributed profits, one of the threats he issued against the business community that helped trigger the Depression Within a Depression?” Just because it’s a lousy idea doesn’t mean it won’t come round again.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 6:29 pm