Posted on 01/02/2013 12:07:17 PM PST by reaganaut1
...
The whale comes last:
"Greater progressivity would reduce rising income inequality, and with it, inequality of opportunity that is both an economic and social scourge."
The Times is arguing forthrightly for confiscatory taxation of income and wealth, in order simply to reduce post-tax incomes. This isn't "redistribution," it's "off with their heads!"
Inequality of opportunity? No, President Obama's kids should not go to Sidwell Friends, they should go to DC public schools like everyone else? Mayor Rahm Emanuel's kids shouldn't go to the University of Chicago Lab school (mine go there too, but I don't preach this stuff), they should have to go to Chicago public schools like everyone else? These are "economic and social advantages" arising from unequal income. Big ones, that motivate a lot of parents to work hard so they can afford the tuition. French President Francois Hollande has a better idea: ban homework, so kids with smart parents can't get an advantage because they get help on homework. Too bad you can't ban homework in China and India. No concierge medicine either. Stand in line for medicaid like the rest of us.
And to accomplish this leveling, we'll just take money from "the rich" until all are equally impoverished.
Am I being alarmist? No. Read the sentence again, carefully. Words matter. What else can it possibly mean?
It's just astounding. When has a society ever grown, become prosperous, and raised opportunities for its citizens--of any background--by confiscatory taxation, transferring wealth to the State, with the deliberate aim of reducing the opportunities of a segment of its population? The examples I can think of -- French and Russian revolutions, the whole communist world -- ended rather badly. Even more modest attempts, say postwar Britain, do not augur well.
(Excerpt) Read more at johnhcochrane.blogspot.com ...
Taxes won’t do it.
And, I figure that CW-II will officially start with the Obama-stards come for our 401s.
One notes that the squeeky little putz that runs the Times has no intention of giving his money to the ‘disadvantaged.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.