Think About This Critically- Is The Obamaesque Redistribution Of Wealth Good For Everyone?
By admin on Feb 27, 2010 with Comments 9
If you can, divorce yourself from your own personal biases and preconceived notions. Have an ear for the opposition for a moment if you are a strong advocate of Obama, and keep an open mind.
Let’s say that you are an entrepreneur. You have owned a business for 20 years and have worked extremely hard for it. You now earn over $250,000 per year. The government comes and takes away some of your own money to give to the less fortunate.
Think about this critically- be honest- is this fair and good for everyone?
BE HONEST.
Filed Under: Featured
Redistribution of wealth through centralized planning and taxation never produces the desired effects. It has been tried and has failed miserably since Marx’s sociologically based theories gained popularity in the late 19th century.
In the end, redistribution causes a trickle up poverty effect. Incentive to be productive is reduced at the top, investment stagnates, unemployment rises; and the same people the government set out to help in the first place end up in a worse position than they started – only they have a lot more company at the bottom.
The government would be far better off promoting free markets and allowing them to efficiently allocate resources.
As was proven with JFK, Reagan, and Bush (43), lower taxes increase federal revenues because they promote economic activity and broaden the tax base. If Obama and the Democrats really cared about deficits they would embrace this simple fact to help fund their programs (even though it would reduce the number of people seeking help). Unfortunately, they care more about class warfare and fighting Capitalism.
If the government took all the wealth in the country and divided it up evenly among all the citizens, you would see the same distribution we have today within 5 to 10 years because individual incentive drives economies and regardless of the obstacles put in place, the market will function in the end.
Obama’s “bottom up” growth model is completely illogical. If that held true, the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and all of Africa would be running circles around market based economies. His “tax cut” for 95% of Americans is mathmatically impossible because about 40% of American tax payers report no income tax liability. His argument that they pay FICA taxes doesn’t hold any water because everyone gets their FICA taxes back in the end when they retire and receive a Social Security check or Medicare benefits.
Incentive to improve oneself begets the same in others and progress insues. It’s a law that is as indisputable as gravity.
Short answer is that taxes are just not fair.
But if we are to think critically about it, taxes are NEEDED, despite thier inherent unfairness.
So, we are not faced with two choices, no taxes, or Obama’s plan. We ARE faced with taxes, either Obama’s, or McCain’s. So which plan seems more fair, lower taxes for the rich, but less services for the poor and middle class, crumbling infrastructure, more debt for the future generations, or slightly higher taxes (back to the levels during the economic boom days of the Clinton era), and less burden for the lower income classes. I think if YOU think about it critically, you will see that ever lower taxes for the wealthy is a burden on the working class and future generations, and increases the disparity in income so that the rich get richer and the poor poorer, now really, how can you call that fair?
Very few policies are good for everyone, that is why we have interest groups and political parties competing for influence in making government policy. Policies have unintended consequences so they are sometimes bad for almost everybody, for example the current financial meltdown has resulted in a losses for almost everyone,
I believe that the Bush tax cuts and the spending on war by increasing the deficits has contributed to the maintaining the dollar at too high a level, reducing the competitiveness of US export businesses and loss of jobs in manufacturing industries. They may fall into the category of a policy that was bad for everybody, because even the rich business owner may have had a higher after tax income, it he had paid more taxes. I would not like to see more tax cuts for anyone and see increases for most people, until we get the deficit under control, and continuing with the policy that has produced the worst economy in my life time would be a terrible mistake.
I doubt many Obama supporters spend much time in this section. I hope I’m wrong, but given his support, in light of his crazy views on the economy, I think I’m correct.
Redistribution of wealth in our great country makes no sense. It’s a horrible idea. I can’t believe we’re actually looking at a scenario where it might happen – Democrats controlling the legislature and WH.
when we decide to put a business and get rich we consider many possibilities, include that you mentioned, and if we do not give add to the poor we prevent for it…a rich person can give you many examples….
I’m from the UK, so this won’t affect me at all, but I think the idea’s awful.
I don’t think they’d ever actually take action on something like this though.
they won’t do it, not if I split the business in half and sell half of it to my brother-in-law.
not fair to those who made it good
Good for everyone yes and no.
If you really think about it a redistribution of wealth could benefit the entire nation by giving everyone a more even platform to build his or her own careers from. Rather than the kids on those pathetic Sweet 16 shows having all the opportunities in the world and an expectation that it should be theirs for the taking.
On the other hand this is a huge disincentive to work hard and become a big player. If you think that all poor people are lazy then you will probably be of the opinion that redistribution of wealth is unfair.
This is the exact reason why all developed countries have taxes and social policies that balance out what the free market will never do.
There is an added benefit to everyone when wealth is redistributed from wealthy to less fortunate the vast majority of this money is spent quickly on necessities and becomes profits for those wealthy people who have inherited the position of profit in the first place.