Why not soak the Rich to pay for it all?

1 reply [Last post]
Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010

I mean they got it right. They got theirs and how dare they think they should be able to keep it. After all it's not really theirs is it?

MICHAEL MOORE: WEALTHY AMERICANS’ MONEY IS NOT THEIRS IT’S ‘OURS’; ‘NATIONAL RESOURCE’, WE NEED TO TAKE IT FROM THEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfd_sNw2-Y&feature=player_embedded

That is how the Progressive left thinks. I have read literally hundreds maybe thousands of post all expressing the same or a slight variant of that theme. The Rich need to get some "Skin in the Game" remember that one?
President Obama is using class Warfare once again. "Are you willing to compromise your kids' safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?" President Obama.
Apparently Corporate Jet-Owners are responsible for sending your kids to college or make them safe now. It is woefully apparent that President Obama does not even grasp the basics of Economics.
His myopic view of how America works would be laughable if our Economic future where not in his hands. Until he can understand the Economics of the pencil and how it affects the economy I don't think I will take my advice from him.

So let's examine the theory of making the Rich get some skin in the game.

First we have to completely forget that the "Rich" are generally the business owners we all are or have worked for. I have said it several times, I have never worked for a poor man. We also have to ignore that the "Rich" are the investors of private industry. So once we do that let's explore the plunder we will receive once we soak'em.

What would the Government gain if in fact they confiscated all the wealth of the "Rich" and taxed 100% of all of their income above $200,000.000 per household per year?

Using the latest data from the IRS, in 2004 there were somewhere near 2.7 million people that had a new worth of more than $1.5 million.
If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion -- and no one would again attempt to accumulate wealth. Assuming it was applied to the national debt the national debt would only be reduced from$14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion.
Current spending levels have us in deficit spending of $1.45 Trillion dollars PER YEAR projected out for the next 10 years. Adding approximately $15 Trillion to the debt. So by confiscating ALL of the wealth they would have paid down our debt to $10 Trillion but then add another $15 Trillion over the next 10 years. So what is accomplished?

Now let's assume the "Rich" are soaked for all their worth. The Government still has a spending problem. So the Michael Moore crowd decides that $200,000.00 per year is sufficient for any household, then in 2008 the 6.9 million filers with incomes above the ceiling would have had their incomes confiscated by the Government The one-time gain the Government would receive would be $221 Billion, and no one would put forth the effort to ever again make more than $200,000.00 thus stifling growth and business. Tax revenues in subsequent years would never increase unless tax rates are raised which are self-defeating and historically results in even lower tax receipts.

So soaking the "Rich" is a non-starter. There is not enough "wealth" in the wealthy to pay for more than just two years of our Government spending. Once that was depleted the merely well off would be next and finally those that had a little saved up. The monster has to be fed after all.

Economic freedom is based on a simple philosophical rule. Everyone has a right to his or her life and property and no one has the right to deprive anyone of these things. That is the basic truth we used to live by.

We have allowed government to operate according to its own set of moral rules.

Frederic Bastiat, one of the greatest political and economic writers of all time, called this “legal plunder”. He identified three approaches to this plunder.

1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We presently follow option number two. Everyone seeks to use government to enrich himself at his neighbor’s expense. Bastiat called the state “the great friction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

Today that is expressed as "Get some skin in the game" or the class warfare of "Corporate Jets".

But here is a radical idea. What if we all followed option #3. What if we learned to be self-sufficient and stop using the machinery of Government to steal from one class to re-distribute it to another. What if we stopped doing things we would consider morally outrageous if done by private individuals but we consider perfectly all right when carried out by government in the name of “public policy”.

We have a spending problem in Washington D.C. I know that paying more taxes is absolutely abhorrent to those of us of the Conservative Right, but we are going to have to. That is also a foregone conclusion. BUT not until we get some assurances that D.C can and will control their spending. Until they stop wasting our money they will not get one more dime without a fight.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Oh yea Michael Moore

Despises how workers are taken advantage of but has a history of using non-union workers for his films. It helps his....bottom line.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/michael-moore-snubs-union-workers-making-...

Recent Comments