Tax the Rich!

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.

We have observed in various recent meetings, letters to the editor, and comments posted through local news media and blogs, that liberal progressive Democrats are pushing the idea once again that Republicans just want to give more benefits to rich people, and don't care at all about what happens to seniors, minorities, or the poor or helpless among us.

They argue that we need to tax the rich more to pay for all of the good things which government needs to do for everybody else's benefit.

There is simply no end to all of the good things which they think government can and should do, as a matter of "social justice" or "fairness", to spend other people's money more equitably and wisely.

The implicit assumption is that "progress" comes from wise government spending plans, rather than through private choices by individuals about how to earn and spend their own money, regardless of how rich or poor they may be at the time.  The greedy rich obviously can't be trusted (despite all philanthropic evidence to the contrary) to make good choices about how to address important social needs.  Government must not only level the playing field for fair competition, but ensure that every player gets the same trophy at the end.

The concept of a limited role for government, as provided in our Constitution, is dismissed as irrelevant or obsolete.   Politicians have been allowed to rip up that contract and simply spend our money as they pleased until we have none left.  Indeed, we have developed a staggering debt, which some describe as "generational theft", because we have no plans to pay it off in our lifetimes.  We're at risk of becoming one of the first generations of Americans in history to leave our children worse off than ourselves.

As a simple analogy, suppose that you have a leaky faucet, and choose to hire a plumber to fix it.  You expect that plumber to show up, efficiently do what has been requested, be paid for that necessary skill and work, and leave.

You don't expect the plumber to show up and then decide for himself that your home needs improvement, and completely renovate the house and landscaping, and just leave you the bill.  You certainly don't expect to pay for him to renovate every home in your neighborhood before you realize it, and send you the bill for that, too.

That, however, is what our unlimited government has become.  Politicians have decided that they can do whatever seems to be a popular idea at the time - regardless of the limits of their Constitutional authority.  Unfortunately, we have allowed them to do this.

We have turned all the political plumbers loose to do whatever they think needs to be done at the time - mistakenly thinking that this would be limited to some other neccesary plumbing repairs rather than the transformation of our national neighborhood.  We gave the politicians too much of a blank check, and they have drained our account with it.

I think Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation has provided an interesting challenge to this class warfare logic by simply taking it at face value, and showing the absurd failure of it to address the spending problem. 

In a recent discussion forum, "The debt and soaking the rich", he posted the following remarks.  You can find the full text on the Barrington Tea Party website.

"Let’s soak the rich."

Who should we start with?

How about one of the most famous rich people in America, Bill Gates.  Gates is the richest American with a net worth of about $56 billion.  Let’s take all of that away from him and we can cover America’s deficit for fifteen days.  That is right, if we take every penny away from the richest man in America, we can cover the difference between revenue and spending for half a month.  Warren Buffet is next on this list at $50 billion.  His money would cover the deficit for thirteen days.   Larry Ellison is the next richest American at $39 billion.  That will go for another ten days.  So far, we have taken the wealth of the three richest men in America and we are only able to fund our deficits for 38 days.

Christie Walton is next on the list at $26 billion.  There is another seven days right there.  Now we are up to 45 days or a month and a half.  Sheldon Adelson is next at $23 billion.  That only keeps us going for another six days.  The Koch brothers are next at $22 billion each.   Taking their fortunes would give the country another six days each.  So far, we have taken the wealth of the top six wealthiest people in America and the government can only cover its deficit for two months.

Jim Walton, brother of Christie Walton is next at $21 billion. His wealth is only going to cover five days.  Jeff Bezos has $18 billion. Now we are down to 4 days.   John Paulson is next at $16 billion.  His wealth only covers our deficit for 4 days as well. Following him are Steve Ballmer and George Soros at $14 billion.  Wait, there maybe some billionaires we should do this to.  If we took each of their money, we are down to three days.

So far, we have taken the wealth of the ten wealthiest American and that covers our deficit for less than 90 days."

Judson continues to illustrate with other examples that confiscating the entire wealth of the richest Americans won't last long, but you get the idea.  It's not sustainable as a solution to our government spending problem.  You soon run out of rich people.

As he points out, "The government borrows money at $40,000 a second."

That's just the federal government.  Don't forget the state and local spending and debt.

Think about that.  Don't blame the plumber.  We elected the politicians who did this.  We turned them loose, asked them for more than we could possibly afford, and really liked all of the improvements which they were delivering to our neighborhood - right up until the moment when we woke up and looked at the bill, and realized that we were ruined.  We obviously don't like getting the bill, but do we still think that we need everything they did?

Are you still asking the plumber to just keep doing the same thing as before, and give the bill to your wealthiest neighbor?

Do we want to keep getting all the latest "improvement" ideas or big government "progress" for our own benefit, no matter what happens to the rest of our neighborhood, or who eventually has to pay the bill? 

Are we dragging down our entire country by government spending we cannot afford while arguing that rich people have some obligation to "give back" to us from their success?  Is that really a solution to the problem?  Is that charity, or greed and political corruption?  We can be charitable to those in need without using the power of government to fleece those who succeed.  It is not charitable to develop government Ponzi schemes.

After decades of government growth beyond all reason, it is time to make some tough choices.  The easiest one is to switch plumbers - urgently.  The 2010 election started that necessary return to economic reality in Washington DC, even if not yet in Springfield.