A friend sent this to me.
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not ea rn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. "
8 comments:
Here's what an Obama redistribution of wealth plan for Halloween. When the kids come to my door I am going to inspect their candy buckets. If they have too much (only 25 pieces, ahh, 20 pieces, ahh 15 pieces ahh ohh whatever I feel like taking when the time comes), I will confiscate most of their candy.
Kids: Hey, that's not fair! We have been out walking around for hours! We earned that candy!
Me: Some kids don't have the same initiative and determination as you, so I am going to help them out and give them some of your candy. Oh, and by the way, I am not very good at this, so some of the candy will get lost, or eaten by me, or I might earmark some for the pets. Tough luck!
Kids (to each other): Come on! Let's TP his house!
Brian smiles and chuckles at both examples.
I'm not sending my kids to trick or treat at your house! You old meanie! I guess if Obama wins....I won't be able to send them to his house either.
I've written about the redistribution farce a lot already in other postings. I've weighed in quite a bit. I hope you will read (reread) what I have written in previous posts on redistribution.
So OK, for argument's sake, let's go for the flat tax. No deductions of any kind (that's the only fair way). No deductions for charitable giving, no deductions for children or dependents, no deductions for money paid to other governments state or local, no mortgage deductions, no medical loss deductions, no capital gains deductions. Every hour you work, every penny you earn, no matter how much or how little, you owe the same percentage portion of it to the government no matter your circumstances. Fair is fair. No brackets of any kind.
Ultimately, that is your only other option because if you believe even a little bit in progressive taxes, you are anchoring yourself to the notion that some ought to pay more and others less. The only question then is what the brackets are. But it is too late, you have accepted the principal, you have set foot on the slippery slope and you now have to decide at what point one pays a greater percentage than those earning less.
As well, you have to decide, in order to eliminate evil redistribution of money, how to go about making sure that money is not redistributed. So what programs would you like to begin to eliminate or restructure? Everything is on the table:
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Social Security Disability Payments?
Social Security Retirement Benefits?
Unemployment benefits?
Federally Subsidized Housing?
Food Stamps?
VA benefits?
Farm subsidies (a midwest Republican favorite)?
School breakfast and lunch programs for the poor?
There are many,many other programs all of which are socialist in nature.
What ARE you talking about when you talk about redistribution of wealth? I assume that you mean that anyone making money is subsidizing anyone not employed if they receive any benefit or money at all or if they can't pay for any service or benefit on their own.
The story that Teresa shared with us did not take into account that most who are on the streets have serious mental, emotional, or physical problems that make them unemployable. Ask yourself next time you are hit up for a dollar on the street if you would hire that person or want to get involved with them in anyway. Your answer will be no. But they are there. They will never be productive members of our society. The waiter in the story earns about half (or well less) of the minimum wage. This is allowed by government because the government assumes that tips will be left (and taxes them at about an 8% clip of the bill). The not-so-wise man in the story ended up costing the waiter money. Nice. As for the trick-or-treaters, I assume Alan wouldn't open the door in the first place: Imagine that! Walking about begging for candy (not even food) and not even working for it! (Out walking around for candy does not equate to earning it, otherwise the beggars on the street are certainly earning their money and by rights ought to be taxed for their earnings.) (You may say that you are giving candy voluntarily as a citizen as with tithing, but by confiscating it, you are assuming the role of the government at the same time thereby screwing up the analogy.) Simplistic comparative anecdotes just don't work in an arena where complexity is unavoidable and a chief characteristic of the debate. Such anecdotes insult the worthy debate because they are weak. They make us think that it is just that simple and thereby do a gross disservice to the discussion.
First of all, the analogy is inconvenient for the left's point of view, so the return argument is that "The analogy doesn't work because blah, blah, blah." If the analogy is inconvenient, debunk the analogy or at least argue the analogy to death (which it appears we are about to do anyway).
Second, the flat tax is what most of us in our family desire. The US tax system is already the most progressive tax system in the world, even MORE progressive than Sweden, and Obama wants make it even more progressive? The top 10 percent of wage earners already pay 71 percent of the taxes, and Obama says that rich don't pay their fair share? Gimme a break!
Third, Doug makes it sound as if the right is against the programs he lists. We are not against such programs. We are not Scrooge saying "Are there no poor houses?" What we are complaining about is the left's propensity to use compulsory means to achieve its ends. Therefore, the chasm between our positions can probably never be bridged because what we are protesting about is the compulsory nature of the redistribution of wealth. Please let us be charitable with our own money. Please let the redistribution be voluntary. That is one of the points of Teresa's story. The left may scoff can say that volunteerism can never work. That is because it doesn't work in blue states. The fact is that red states are vastly more charitable than blue states. Volunteerism (money and time) works great in red states.
As a general rule,
liberals prefer compulsory means
conservative prefer voluntary means. I am quite convinced that the chasm will never be bridged.
I of course agree with Alan's point...it is all about the idea of having money taken verses money voluntarily given. I think America has proved time and again that it is the most generous of nations when asked to step up to the plate. Compulsory is the key here.
OK. I'm willing to give your ideas a go. Let's make the idea of charity completely voluntary. You still have to decide what that means in terms of what you want to restructure or eliminate. That is what's hard to do. Just how to do you (or how does McCain) intend to go about this? I know that giving money to faith-based charities seems to a be a compassionate Republican favorite. But, your money is still being funneled downward via the government. What other suggestions are out there? Do we know the numbers if a flat tax is offered? The rich will pay less, do you imagine that you will not pay more?
As for the programs: note I said restructure.
I know that you don't all want to eliminate them all.
But please, simplistic grandstanding on 'redistribution' doesn't explain any plan, not even a well thought out direction!
I've already explained why the use of bad analogies is bad debate. It is not at all that the three analogies thus far offered (grade fixing, ripping off the waiter, and stealing trick-or-treat candy) are inconvenient, they are are wildly reductionist and reinforce simplistic views on sophisticated problems.
Your question about how much I would pay in taxes under a flat tax is a good one. It sounds silly perhaps, but I hadn't given it much thought because I don't think it will ever happen. A flat tax seems fair, which is an important concept for those on the left. Thinking back to past years of tax paperwork, and I would really need to do the calculation, but I think I would be paying about the same or maybe just a bit more. Also, I think it would be ok to make it so that very low income groups don't pay any taxes, but I don't know where the cutoff point should be. However, I am quite sure that resulting revenue flow to the government would be higher because there would be no loopholes for corporations and individuals to avoid paying taxes, and because business activities would be more energetic with the additional capital in the market, the resulting revenue to the government would be higher. This last fact has been proven in theory as well as practice and I can't understand why the Democrats don't embrace it. More revenue is what they want, isn't it? (Actually, I think I know why the Dems won't embrace the concept, but I think I would upset some people if I actually stated the reason.)
Second to lastly, Exxon Mobile paid record income taxes last year. More sales = more revenue to the government.
Lastly, the very point of an analogy is to state a complex issue in simple terms. Analogies always break down at some point, so they are easy to discount if one does not like the point made by the analogy.
Post a Comment