Letter to the Editor: Redistribution of Wealth
What is the redistribution of wealth? On two separate occasions, President Obama is on record as saying that he favors it. But what does it mean? Very simply, it means taking wealth by force from those who have it and giving it to those who do not have it. The political justification for this is couched in soothing terms of “fairness” and giving everyone an “equal shot”.
The problem with it is that it is neither fair nor equal. State sponsored confiscation and redistribution of wealth is totally contrary to the most deeply held freedom doctrines of our American tradition. We, as citizens of the United States, have always believed that hard work pays off. We believe that, whether as employees or as employers, that what we earn belongs to us. As employees, we work for years, we save, we plan- all in the hope that we can build a small nest egg for retirement. As an employer, or an owner of a business, we can risk our life savings and our talents to build a business. That business succeeds only if it provides a product or service that the public wants, at a price that the public considers reasonable. In other words, the business succeeds only if it serves the public. What have we, the public, invested? Nothing. The business owner has risked the capital, worked untold hours and provided the talent for the business to succeed. If it fails, he looses everything. What have we lost? Nothing.
Now, our government wants to redistribute wealth, by which it means to go far beyond what we consider to be normal taxation. It has several ways to do it. It can impose blatantly confiscatory taxation, stifling regulation, or it can simply seize the wealth. It then can “give” that wealth to politically “favored” people. Whom do you think those who receive the wealth will vote for in the next election? The end goal is to “win” enough votes gain perpetual power. The whole scheme is based upon cynicism and contempt for human agency.
But let the intended recipients of wealth gained through this tactic of class warfare beware, for as Thomas Jefferson said “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have”. Where this radical communist method has been tried in modern history, the result has been not a “fair shot” but resisters getting shot, followed by universal poverty for everyone. It is the very horror that so many have fled to our country to escape.
It is against our Constitution to redistribute the wealth that has been honestly earned or inherited. It is simply wrong. It is simply theft. I would urge you to vote against any politician who favors it.
Mike Jones Loogootee, Indiana
You say: “Now, our government wants to redistribute wealth, by which it means to go far beyond what we consider to be normal taxation.”
Our current top Federal Income tax rate is 35%. Under Harding it was 50%, Hoover: 60%, Ike: 90%, Nixon and Ford: 70%.
We were told to believe that lower taxes on “job creators” created jobs. I think those “job creators” forgot who the real job creators are: us, the people that buy their crap.
Who is going to hire someone to create products no one is buying. Furthermore, business inherently are the opposite of job creators. Their entire purpose is to find a way to do more as cheaply as possible using as few employees as possible.
You say: "What have we, the public, invested? Nothing. The business owner has risked the capital, worked untold hours and provided the talent for the business to succeed. If it fails, he looses everything. What have we lost? Nothing."
There are very few business that do not get the benefit of government loans at reduced interest rates which is essentially loaning tax money to benefit businesses without the public getting the benefit of income from a full interest rate. And should that business fail, does the public get their money back?
Even in Jasper we offer tax abatement where taxpayers ultimately pick up that bill when we lost tax revenues but still need the roads fixed or storms drains updated.
All government subsidies, like farm subsidies, are redistributions of wealth.
Nationally, you can look at how federal dollars are spread over our states and see that redistribution is at work. New Mexico takes $2.63 for every federal $1 they bring in, West Virginia: $2.57, Mississippi: $2.47, District of Colombia: $2.41, Hawaii: $2.38, Alabama: $2.03, Alaska: $1.93, Montana: $1.92, South Carolina: $1.92, Maine: $1.78. These are the top 10.
Now, I support govt loan programs and I support tax abatement and I support some subsidies but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that redistribution of wealth is a liberal idea.
As for the public losing nothing if a business fails…. Who picks up the tab on the gov’t backed loan the business owner took? Look at the area behind the train depot and let me know who you think going to pick up the bill for that, ultimately.
As for the business owner losing everything… look at most of our politicians business history.
Certainly, I don’t think every business owner will survive a collapse in his marketplace but it is ridiculous to say nobody else loses anything…we all do. Whether we have to tear down buildings or lose our tax dollars in unpaid loans.
The example was for a small business that does not get government subsidized loans. I agree government loans to larger businesses such as GM and the green industries that Obama supported should not happen. I have been a GM person all my life. I am not buying another GM until the federal government no longer owns a large portion of the company.