Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Making Too Much Money? (Is there a point when government can say 'You've made enough'?)
American Thinker ^ | 08/17/2012 | Charlotte Cushman

Posted on 08/17/2012 7:07:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

In an interview in Investor's Business Daily on August 13, 2012, Mitch McConnell said: "We have an administration that believes if you are making a profit you are up to no good. You must be cheating your customers or mistreating your employees or both.

"I just met a guy who was running a medium-size business. He said, 'We never had much to do with regulators, but we had one show up recently.' He said they came out just fine, which caused the business owner to ask, 'Why are you here?' And (the regulator) said, 'Mister, you are making too much money.'"

Making too much money? I'll bet there's no such thing as too much money when the administration asks for campaign contributions, or for the worker who wants a raise, or for the church that asks for donations. Funny how that works.

The notion that a business is making too much money is disgusting, but it is not at all surprising. Americans have long bought into the notion that money is evil, so is it any wonder that our government is now working to rid us of it? But money is good. It is simply a medium of exchange used when men trade with each other. If someone has earned a lot of money, it means that he produced a product or a service that a lot of other people wanted. What is wrong with that?

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: money; wealth

1 posted on 08/17/2012 7:07:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

NEVER!


2 posted on 08/17/2012 7:11:15 AM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Be thankful we live in a Republic and not a Democracy, because if this stupid concept were put to a public vote it would pass with overwhelming numbers.


3 posted on 08/17/2012 7:20:13 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I would have replied I wasn’t making too much money the government is taking and wasting too much money.


4 posted on 08/17/2012 7:21:46 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Biden: "HOPE and CHAINS for all 57 states".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes.” --- Franklin D. Roosevelt
5 posted on 08/17/2012 7:22:55 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Romney was right about the Olympics, but neither the Brits or the Dems will admit it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If our governmant does not comprehend the word, ‘enough’ where taxes are concerned...then they have no business telling us what ‘enough’ income means.


6 posted on 08/17/2012 7:36:06 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I read a Thomas Sowell quote recently that just...nails it.

"I cannot figure out how wanting to keep what you earn is greed...but wanting to take what someone else earns and give it to others...is not greed."

7 posted on 08/17/2012 7:37:22 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The trouble with the left’s assumption that, after we’ve “made enough” the government can gobble up an increasingly large chunk of our income is that many, once they reach that point, will simply choose to reduce or eliminate their income for the rest of the year.

I’m self-employed, for example, and my work doesn’t require me to work all year. If we ever get to the point that my marginal tax rate (including federal, state and local taxes) much exceeds, say, 60%, I’ll simply cease striving for the rest of the year and go fishing. This is why the left’s static projections of the revenue they think will be achieved by an increase in taxation levels are invariably wrong. Every increase in income taxes inevitably drives a few more people past the point where leisure is preferable to more income, since so little of any additional marginal income winds up in the taxpayers pocket after taxes.

States like California, Illinois and New York are already well past that point. If Governor Moonbeam shoves his proposed tax increase by California voters in November, I predict that in mere months we’ll be reading stories about state revenue receipts being far lower than projected. In California’s case, not only will more taxpayers have throttled back their work, but more will have gone to Texas.


8 posted on 08/17/2012 7:40:12 AM PDT by Spartan79 (I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obviously when the 4 star Admirals are capped at a certain level. They are working as 4 star Admirals making 3 star Admiral money. It is not right at all.


9 posted on 08/17/2012 7:46:22 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Attention Republican National Convention voters....Santorum/Bachmann 2012! Dump liberal Romney NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

It is none of the Government’s damn business how much I make or what I choose to do with it, so long as my choices are legal.


10 posted on 08/17/2012 7:52:15 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Re-distribute my work ethic, not my wealth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

It is none of the Government’s damn business how much I make or what I choose to do with it, so long as my choices are legal.


11 posted on 08/17/2012 7:52:24 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Re-distribute my work ethic, not my wealth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears
It is none of the Government’s damn business how much I make

Or at least it wasn't until the Thirteenth Amendment


12 posted on 08/17/2012 8:01:08 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
For the government to determine when you have enough or too much money is akin to them deciding when you have enough or too much sex.

They believe that some people have more than they “need” and they are unwilling to share. They believe that those that have lots, somehow received it from those that have little or none. Worst of all, they believe some seem to have more that they “deserve”. They state that some people may have inherited certain assets from their parents and that’s not “fair” to other less fortunate people.

But what hypocrites! The Rats berate success, them promise more to anyone who will voted for them.

13 posted on 08/17/2012 8:06:37 AM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head
For the government to determine when you have enough or too much money is akin to them deciding when you have enough or too much sex.

Monty Python's Flying Circus actually did a skit about this forty years ago. The punchline was "well, it would certainly make Chartered Accountancy a much more interesting profession!"


14 posted on 08/17/2012 8:12:01 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

RE: “the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes.” -— Franklin D. Roosevelt

Define “such incomes”, Mr. FDR, and why...

Also, define “very high taxes” and why the rate.


15 posted on 08/17/2012 8:18:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That regulator needs to become acquainted with the “3 S” priniciple.


16 posted on 08/17/2012 8:25:21 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

FDR proposed 90% on everything above a certain amount, I want to say that was $250,000 (4.4 million today).


17 posted on 08/17/2012 8:35:01 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Romney was right about the Olympics, but neither the Brits or the Dems will admit it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Is there a point when government can say 'You've made enough'?

Yes.

When your business requires a bailout from the taxpayers, you no longer deserve your eight figure salary.

18 posted on 08/17/2012 8:42:08 AM PDT by Drew68 (I WILL vote to defeat Barack Hussein Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
>>It is none of the Government’s damn business how much I make
>
>Or at least it wasn't until the Thirteenth Amendment

The 13th? I thought it was the 16th...

19 posted on 08/17/2012 8:45:56 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
When your business requires a bailout from the taxpayers, you no longer deserve your eight figure salary.

That's not the government; that's the market -- the only time the government should step in is actual crime (ie fraud, theft).

20 posted on 08/17/2012 8:47:50 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79

Ronald Regan, as an actor, famously noted that he’d only make 2 movies a year because, facing a 90% tax rate, there just wasn’t any point in making more.

My favorite Leftist was whining about how the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” should be rolled back. I pointed out that, given his numbers, his hated “Wall Street lawyer making a half-million dollars” would find himself having to work an extra week just to pay the increased taxes, and might decide to take that week off without pay instead. He’d suffer a lower net income, but comes a point where easily-afforded leisure becomes preferable. To the Leftist’s confusion, that “Galting” would cut the anticipated tax revenue increase in half.


21 posted on 08/17/2012 8:55:12 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The true test of a democrat is how they define “too much money”. They will always answer, “more than I make”. It is the same mentality that suggests a human being has “lived long enough” and therefore, becomes dispensable.


22 posted on 08/17/2012 9:39:19 AM PDT by scottiemom (As Texas public school teacher, I highly recommend private school)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Making too much money?

Limiting consumption of the rich would result in the destruction of incentives to accumulate and maintain capital and to improve and maintain production.Losses in terms of innovation and the growth of major new industries would be substantial.

Limiting income of the rich would result in the decumulation of capital.

Limiting wealth of the rich by seizure and confiscation is an assault on private property rights and an assault on the improvement of productivity of labor and economic progress

23 posted on 08/17/2012 9:46:25 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head
For the government to determine when you have enough or too much money is akin to them deciding when you have enough or too much sex.

...or too much food?

24 posted on 08/17/2012 10:01:35 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This idea isn’t new Benito Mussolini used the idea of a company making to much profit as a way to enrich himself & create slush funds for his Fascist party in Italy in the 20-30’s. You accuse a company of making an obscene profit & seize whatever arbitrary amount you want for the “common good” only the party gets to keep & use the money.


25 posted on 08/17/2012 10:01:52 AM PDT by Nebr FAL owner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79
This is why the left’s static projections of the revenue they think will be achieved by an increase in taxation levels are invariably wrong.

The leftists' mental disconnect is truly astounding. They seem to adore using taxation to try controlling the actions of people, realizing that if you make something so expensive they will simply stop doing it, they don't seem to realize that if they reduce one's compensation for work past a certain point, people will stop producing.

A terrific example was a casino in Illinois a couple of years ago. The state decided to increase the already "progressive" taxes on the earnings of the casino. The casino simply did a cost/benefit analysis on what the income for the casino would be if they continued to run 24 hours, as opposed to staying open fewer hours. With the new taxes, the casino owners decided to stay open fewer hours. Because of that, not only didn't the state collect much more in taxes, the casino didn't need all the employees, and the casino had to lay off a number their employees. So the net effect of the tax increase on the casino that the legislature saw as a "cash cow," was to actually cost the state money, due to the unemployment compensation and lost taxes of the workers laid off.

Mark

26 posted on 08/17/2012 2:21:58 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Limiting consumption of the rich would result in the destruction of incentives to accumulate and maintain capital and to improve and maintain production.Losses in terms of innovation and the growth of major new industries would be substantial.

They tried this with the "millionaire taxes" on things like the boating industry... The result? Rather than the windfall the leftists expected, they pretty much wiped out the US yacht industry, putting an awful lot of people out of work.

Part of Marxist theory is "dialectic materialism," a portion of which is if you break things down far enough, you can understand anything. The problem is that while this works OK in a static system, when you have a dynamic system it falls apart rather quickly. Which is why leftists are usually unable to see the consequences of their policies which are obvious to the rest of us.

Mark

27 posted on 08/17/2012 2:29:39 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson