Posted on 03/01/2020 5:35:41 AM PST by Kaslin
Michael Bloomberg said something the other night that raised eyebrows. In a slip, he reminded faithful Democrats that he had paid his dues. Bragging about his $100 million in contributions that led to the Democrats retaking the House he said, “All of the new Democrats who came in, who put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this presidency, I bough… I got them.”
The enormous influence of people like he and George Soros can cause even some crusty conservatives to consider stiff wealth taxes.
Taxing the rich is a proven vote-getter. It works almost every time. Former President Obama reminded Americans that these wealthy business moguls “didn’t build that!” He also said that no one “needs” that much money. This, of course was before he and Michelle “needed” a seven-bedroom, $12 million cottage on 29 acres overlooking the sea on Martha’s Vineyard. We assume someone built that.
John Fund, back when he was a writer for the Wall Street Journal, used a story to illustrate an important point. Feel free to use this with friends and co-workers. John asked people to do this little test. First, close your eyes. Now imagine that when you get home tonight, you open your mail and there is a letter from an attorney. As you read the letter, you suddenly realize that you have been named an heir to a huge fortune. You are about to become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. Since this is a windfall, you decide you want to donate a significant portion to help your fellow man. So take a few minutes to consider who you might donate to.
(Pause, think).
Ok. So how many of you thought, “I know! I’ll donate the money to the federal government!”
Almost everyone will chuckle. Even liberals. Why? Because everyone knows that the least efficient way to help your fellow man is through the federal government. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (who claim they don’t pay enough in taxes) don’t voluntarily donate to Uncle Sam. They have foundations.
Yet, for generations, the Left has demanded more tax money so that they can “help” people.
The Left believes that they can invest (spend) your money smarter than you can. Certainly better than the wealthy can. Once again, they believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence. The cynic might say that robbing Peter to pay Paul is just smart politics, figuring there are a lot more Paul’s in the electorate.
Sadly, this redistribution is corrosive to both Peter and Paul. Paul receives something he did not earn while Peter is denied the reward which he did. Paul is poorer in spirit as he grows in dependency. Peter is simply poorer. Both grow to resent the other. Money the government extracts cannot be reinvested to create more economic opportunities, which is what Paul really needs. Worse, the middleman in this exchange (the government) takes a disproportionate handling fee.
Income inequality is a real issue. The disparity between today’s billionaires and the poorest among us grows greater every year. We must ask, why?
If inadequate tax rates were to blame, Mr. Bloomberg could not have accumulated over $60 billion in one life time. He lives in New York City for crying out loud!
Taxing success is a fool’s bargain. It’s not the government’s business.
It is the government’s business to insure that there is adequate competition. Once a person or company achieves a level that warrants an invite to Davos, their behavior tends to change. They begin to think about how they might use their money and power to influence events. Saving the planet is in vogue. The super-rich also spend considerable energy thinking about how they can use their wealth to thwart any real competition. They’ve learned that governments can be very helpful. Governments grant patents, protections and juicy contracts. Regulations also stifle competition.
Teddy Roosevelt understood how the industrialists of his day were abusing their wealth and power. So he marshaled federal forces to break up the trusts.
Maybe it would be more effective to simply dust off those antitrust books and punish abuse rather than use tax rates to punish success.
Some years back according to the UN or some such, the “rich” were defined as anyone worth over $US10,000.
Contributions to candidates should be limited to constituents only with a reasonable cap on the amount allowed.
“Sadly, this redistribution is corrosive to both Peter and Paul. Paul receives something he did not earn while Peter is denied the reward which he did. Paul is poorer in spirit as he grows in dependency. Peter is simply poorer. Both grow to resent the other.”
Even FDR was horrified at the thought of paying people to remain idle; he preferred programs like the CCC where they’d earn their pay - it was better for all involved. He would have despised LBJ and his “war on poverty”...
People are astoundingly dumb and greedy in this country.
EVERY time a politician raises taxes on the “rich”, I’m amazed that at $50k a year, I somehow become “rich...
And then the news reports those very same politicians are buying a new mansion in another posh district somewhere...
When will people figure it out???
I would be surprised if they raise taxes on themselves.
Why not tax the poor and the cast majority that pays no taxes?
Fairness demands the poor pay something
Eat the rich.
I bet, due to inflation and old fashioned economics, the number will be even lower, if the Dims ever get a chance to implement their tax on the rich.
But maybe not, perhaps they will define rich as anyone who makes more than the typical Dim target voter class.
Civil Asset Forfeiture the politicos and their friends for their ill-gotten gains. Listening Joe, Hillary, $oroS, Weinstein, Epstein. Did our gubmint confiscate PEDO island and Lolita’s express? Would you like to sit in my cockpit girls? Have you ever seen a naked man, Timmy?
The sad thing is that these people to damned lazy to work, actually believe that the dimocrats are going to make all of THEM rich by taxing all the RICH!!! They are that gullible. Good freaking grief!! Sheep. That is all they are. Sheep following the piper of the communists, thinking communism will work here with all these “smart” dimocrats doing it. It failed in the Soviet Union. It has crushed a prosperous nation of Venezuela. North Korea is a prison camp. The only reason Red China has done well is the may be communists, but they do the capitalists walk when it comes to money.
“they will define rich as anyone who makes more than the typical Dim”
I have to disagree. They will define “rich” as anyone who does not toe the PC line, regardless of wealth.
In current America, rich means you pay taxes
Can anyone name one communist country that has been a success? It is astounding to me that just 30 years out from the fall of the Berlin wall we have so many people who believe that the system that built that wall is the best one.
The total abolition of the personal and corporate income taxes and of the inheritance tax is an essential feature of a pro-capitalist political program. It is required by the individual’s right to his own property. In addition, progress toward the abolition of these taxes helps to create the conditions required for economic progress, by increasing economic incentives, and the ability to save, both of which serve to promote capital accumulation, and thus a rising productivity of labor and rising average real wage rates.
... and that, consequently, you should pay even more. On what you earn, on what you've saved, and when you die.
Due to human nature and mathematics, every society will have its one percenters (just as in every category, half will be below average). The difference between capitalist and socialist societies is who has the power to determine who gets to be a one percenter: the individual or the government. You might say, well the government can make sure the spread between the top and bottom one percenters is more equitable but that is envy speaking, not common sense.
I fully agree that oligarchs like Soros, Bloomberg and others have way too much influence but the solution lies more in re-establishing personal morality throughout society than confiscatory taxation and abusive governmental power.
That is probably what they are thinking, but when the rubber meets the road, there won't be enough money and it will default to all taxpayers and they will likely lower the bar on who makes enough to pay taxes.
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.