Posted on 01/18/2020 3:25:45 AM PST by Kaslin
Editor's Note: This piece was authored by Young Voices contributor Nate Hochman.
During Tuesday nights Democratic debate in Iowa, long-shot billionaire presidential candidate Tom Steyer made the case for a tax on the wealth of the richest Americans, explaining that he finds the income inequality in this country to be unbearable, unjust and unsupportable. The rest of the politicians on the stage almost all millionaires themselves nodded along in blissfully unironic agreement.
The issue of income inequality is practically a raison dêtre for candidates like Steyer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but a similar sentiment regarding the immorality of the nations wealth distribution is often echoed by a wide range of progressive politicians. This indictment of Americas wealth distribution is relative rather than absolute. Meaning its not just that there is something objectively wrong with the living conditions of the working class, but rather that there is something unconscionable about the way that some live in comparison to others. For those who subscribe to this view, a particular level of inequality in a societys economic distribution is wrong simply because it is. Subsequently, theres a certain level of individual wealth that is inherently immoral. As the Twitter handle of a senior policy advisor for congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reads, Every Billionaire is a Policy Failure.
But exactly how much wealth, relative to the mean, is too much? And what exactly would a just distribution of income look like? These arent just hypothetical questions they reveal a fundamental defect in the relativist view of the economy. The anger over the concentration of wealth at the top of the income distribution relative to the middle and working classes often stems from the notion that the economy is static, and that every dollar gained for Bill Gates is a dollar lost for less wealthy Americans. To view the economy in this way, however, would be a grave mistake.
Market economies are far from static, and the accumulation of wealth by the most prosperous individuals does not amount to a theft of income from the working class. To be sure, some people become wealthier more quickly than others during periods of economic growth, but the beauty of the free market lies in its ability to create value for everyone. Success in a market economy often stems from ones ability to create a product or service that motivates consenting individuals to willingly part with their economic capital. Subsequently, many of the most affluent members of our society acquired their wealth by creating enormous value for others and not just those in the top quadrants. Its no wonder, then, that standards of living have continued to improve for Americans in every income bracket, even as the gap between the rich and the poor has widened.
Ironically, this is the exact argument that Senator Sanders made when confronted with the fact that his personal wealth now situates him in that oft-denigrated top 1% of the countrys income distribution. How did Sanders become a millionaire? I wrote a best-selling book, he explained to the New York Times. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too. Of course, this is an inadvertent recitation of the argument often made by Sanders fiercest critics: he created a desirable product, which he then traded in exchange for money to consenting individuals in the market. Its difficult not to be astounded by such an impressive exercise of cognitive dissonance: the Vermont senator continues to be unabashedly convinced that the wealth of his fellow one-percenters is damning evidence of an unjust, unfair system that needs to be corrected through massive redistributionist policies. But when it comes to the significance of his own income, he suddenly becomes uncharacteristically charitable. How odd.
The eccentricities of septuagenarian socialists notwithstanding, those who are concerned with the lot of the American working class should center their energies on material prosperity, economic mobility and wage growth rather than becoming mired in concerns over relative wealth distribution. There is still real work to be done in these areas, to be sure, but attempting to punish the successful rather than expanding opportunity for the least fortunate will likely exacerbate such issues. Contrary to what many contemporary progressives seem to believe, punitive wealth redistribution is not the key to a more prosperous or just America. Instead, policymakers should focus on increasing the politys ability to lead lives of purpose and dignity something thats rarely, if ever, provided by a massive new government program.
Matthew 19:24-26 ends with:
... Then who can be saved? And looking upon them Jesus said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.
Perhaps a person who lives a life without sin - a task that would be much harder for the rich - may not need New Testament salvation to enter heaven, hence the camel through needle eye parable you referred to, albeit misquoted.
Perhaps no such person exists, regardless.
Hence, the last part of that scripture, above, is, IMHO, the more important one.
The point is we should not covet any of those qualities nor should we seek any form of extraction from those who have more from us in any of those cases.
But for some reason, what would be an outrageous question and or act of extraction for any other lawfully achieved or inherited attribute gets a complete pass when it comes to the attribute of wealth.
1. We should put all pension systems, including Social Security and all the retirement systems for government employees, on a fully funded, investment account basis. This would bring all Americans into the investor class. It would lead to real wealth accumulation for working class families, which would tend to compound over the generations. It would solve the problem of the massive unfunded liabilities that make our current unfunded systems unsustainable.
2. We could voucher the schools to allow lower income families to opt out of dysfunctional public school systems in which real education is sacrificed to extraneous political objectives and union interests.
3. We could acknowledge and attempt to address the problem of illegitimacy which underlies intergenerational poverty. Government can't simply snap its fingers and change mating behavior, but as it stands today, popular culture and government policy are systematically de-stigmatizing, legitimating, and subsidizing single parenthood. That sabotages the poor.
4. We could control the borders and stop importing 1-2 million poor people a year, who require benefits themselves while simultaneously depressing wages and increasing unemployment among our own lower classes.
5. We could focus systematically on reducing taxes and regulations that inhibit small business formation in troubled urban areas.
There are five concrete proposals right there. Our current crop of Democrats may howl all they like about income inequality and wealth differentials, but they are on the wrong side of every one of these issues. Their policies systematically sabotage America's lower classes, and their only proposed remedy is downward levelling targeted against the affluent, with a privileged carveout, of course, for government employees.
It would be an interesting moment in the Democratic presidential debates if one of the questioners addressed this set of contradictions. But I am not going to hold my breath.
I’m all for taking soros’ money and giving to to FReepers.
Income inequality exists because workers are not equal. Further, those that do not work never get rich and their income will always be unequal.
There are many reasons for the inequality of people but the main reason is that some people are inherently inferior in the qualities that are income related.
Many Americans have the freedom to overcome the inequality but are inherently too lazy to make the effort to improve themselves. They will never be rich
... Im all for taking soros money and giving to to FReepers.
Coveting much?
Thanks - I like his writing but never came across that one.
The disciples were amazed, and asked if the wealthy could not be saved, who could?
Jesus replied, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matt. 19:25–26; italics added.)
In the United States, even the poor are wealthy compared to the rest of the world.
All men are sinners, all men need salvation.
If our financial instruments remain available to all in our country, there will always be wealth disparity. What that actually means and how static the members of either side are, makes all the difference.
I am really beginning to believe that the tyrannical /maniacal/unconstitutional actions put in place and trying to be put into place, will result in a feudal type society and government.
The LEFT are like guys in tennis who win in doubles and after they win, they suggest we mix up the teams, you know, to make them more “equal.” If I’m on the losing team, I am offended by that and it motivates me more to beat em.
We used to teach kids to look at the rich as a motivation to study harder, work harder, and the sky’s the limit. Now the LEFT’s message is to change things so as to be more equal. Fools........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_rich_young_man
... Hence, the last part of that scripture, above, is, IMHO, the more important one
Oh I quite agree
What the rich man failed in was The Second Great Command
And by extension the First Great Command
Yes, you can: the Red Chinese are doing it right now.
Outstanding comments, sphinx.
The illogic of the left in attacking the accumulated wealth of millionaires and billionaires lies in their apparent belief that the wealthy keep their treasure in vaults in their homes and castles. Being a one-dimensional, reactionary philosophy, socialism cannot recognize the net gain of money being churned through the whole of society via banks and investment houses that hold those monies.
——wealth differentials——
Aahhh...... you attack the propaganda with the use of accurate and nonprejudicial language
The wealth differential is a function of the intellectual differential
In America, I feel there’s no such thing as “TOO wealthy” — as long as the wealth was earned honestly. It’s the American Dream for some people. (Different people have different dreams.)
When is my business your business?
Well, djf, you would likely not be alone in your plan. Others with great wealth do much the same thing, I’d say. Otherwise, we would all be able to name many more of them than we currently can.
But, the great fact is that your ‘money’ would still be working in society, unless you were to keep it all in your mattresses, closets and basements.
The socialists can’t seem to grasp this concept...
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.