Posted on 08/09/2011 8:12:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Obama has said that he wants to "spread the wealth". He proposes to raise taxes on "the rich" to get more money for "stimulus" spending, such as longer unemployment benefits. Let's look at how this "spread the wealth" thing would actually work.
Joe Lunchbox works in a factory owned by Reginald Bigbucks III, a billionaire. Obama stops at the factory during a "Jobs" bus tour through the Midwest. Joe and his coworkers assemble in the lunchroom to hear Obama speak.
"Good news," the president tells the workers. "We are going to be spreading the wealth. We are raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires-like Reginald Bigbucks III-and we are going to spend the money to benefit the middle class, people like you."
Joe raises his hand. "What do you mean?" he asks. "I mean, like, what is actually going to happen?"
Obama explains, "To pay my new taxes, Mr. Bigbucks is handing this factory over to the federal government. We are going to tear it down and sell it for scrap. Then we are going to use the money to extend unemployment benefits for another 99 weeks."
"Oh," Joe sighs. "Well, then, I guess that I'm going to be needing those unemployment benefits."
If the above example strikes you as fanciful, consider the following. To "tax" is to take away something from someone and give it to the government. "The rich" are rich because they own a lot of assets. So, what it means to "tax the rich" is to take assets away from rich people and transfer them to the government.
So, what are the assets that the rich own? The rich don't have money bins full of cash, like Scrooge McDuck. Rather, they own things like factories, office buildings, and oil wells, either directly, or indirectly via stocks and bonds.
In other words, the rich own most of the "nonresidential fixed assets" of the nation. These assets certainly count as "wealth", but what they are physically are the tools that workers use to produce America's GDP.
The government doesn't want factories, office buildings, or oil wells. It wants cash. So, taxing the rich forces them to liquidate assets. This liquidation is accomplished financially, rather than by actually tearing down factories and selling them for scrap.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST
Doesn’t work as an economic strategy.
Works great as a political strategy.
Works great as a Marxist strategy
I think we need to be honest with ourselves. Taxing “the rich” doesn’t seem to work but trickle down economics doesn’t completely work either. It has been tried over and over and it always has the same results. If trickle down worked we would have seen close to zero unemployment under Bush. With the tax cuts and the deregulation put into place we should have seen an influx of jobs. Taxing the crap out of the rich doesn’t work either. It sure as hell doesn’t create jobs. I honestly think we need a happy medium somehow. I think “the rich should have a minimal tax increase. I also think the Government should cut spending in all of the pet projects on both sides. I think the Rats need to be willing to cut their Liberal Entitlement programs down. I honestly think unless we find a common ground nothign will change. I know this is controversal for some but our system is broken and needs to be fixed and neither side seems to want to budge. If we are ourselves aren’t willing to budge neither will the Dems and all we have is a pissing contest that is pissing away our fine country.
Oh, just go ahead and tax the rich.
Eat them, even.
Give Barky the heads of America's hedge fund traders and CEOs and Hollywood moguls on silver platters. Do away with the charitable deduction loophole. Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, drive more middle class into bankruptcy with thousands of extra in taxes, and kill the nearly dead housing industry- many real estate moguls are democrat donors anyway.
Let the rich fly coach.
Removes’”tax the rich” and “fair share” and
“shared sacrifice” as a campaign issue
Puts the economy deeper into the crapper
But there is more pain necessary to further demonstrate the bankruptcy of obama’s ideology and his lack of intellectual leadership. It will also remove a certain number of high rolling donors from the kool aid drinking progressive-causes rank and file
Strangely enough, because of the uncertainty generated by Obama’s policies, many companies are sitting on cash, rather than risking horrendous taxation and hyper-regulation on anything they would do with that money (like hire people, invest in new equipment/facilities, etc.)...
You owe me $1,000,000.
Pardon?
Correct. It has never been meant as an economic strategy. It makes “the poor” feel better.
You owe me $1,000,000. How would yo like to pay?
The Fund Raiser-In-Chief has no idea how to raise revenues.
Will someone explain to him the difference between his fat cat contributors and hard working citizens?
Between greasing his palm and growing an economy?
“but trickle down economics doesn’t completely work either”
You assume that the government can and should order everybody’s life. Freedom will not produce a perfect world just the best possible world. There will always be people who in your infinite wisdom don’t have as much as you think they should. You say that if “trickle down” (leftist speak for free or freer economies), we would have had close to zero unemployment under Bush. The size and scope of government and its spending went up under Bush. Prosperity is inversely proportional to government’s share of the economy.
Government control of our lives and economy keeps expanding. No matter who is in control. Consider that there are NO (zero, nada) spending cuts in the budget/debt deal. All lies and fraud.
Benjamin Franklin was right. “I observed that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves.”
It doesn’t work because Congress is full of rich people who need rich people to help them get re-elected so they grant them tax breaks.
“Tax the wealthiest Americans” is code for “tax the middle class”
Let me make it simple. ONE: Thou shall not covet other people’s wealth. Two: Thou shall not steal.
All the rest is extraneous.
The only thing the government should be doing in regards to the “wealth” issue is preaching personal accountability. It’s not up to the government to create wealth for individuals through taxing the rich, or trickle down, or whatever. Freedom to choose is the only thing necessary.
That’s one of the founding principles of this country & we need to get back to it. As the ole saying goes “for every person that climbs the ladder of success, there are twelve waiting for the elevator”. What we need more than anything are leaders that teach the importance of the ladder, not the elevator, & the importance of climbing that ladder personally, not having someone climb it for you.
This should be the only role of the government in this regard. Period.
To be a socialist/democRat,
you simply have to try to justify coveting and theft.
And they do - “we” vote on it, so it’s OK to covet and steal from others, if you have a majority vote.
How about instead of telling me what I “assume” you tell me what you think should be done? Our country is in a pickle and that needs to change. If we can’t be rational thinkers and try to come up with a plan we are destined for failure. I agree that the debt deal does nothing, zero, nada to answer to this countries economical problems. It’s a friggen dog and pony show. Nobody wants to piss off their base because they are worried more about their jobs than this country.
We could straighten this mess out right quick if Christians would see that majority rule does not overturn God’s commands. Covetousness and theft by majority vote is no better than by an individual.
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.