Redistribution of Wealth
Let's think about the lower, middle and upper income people in America. The socialist belief - which Obama promotes - is that we should "spread the wealth" by evening out these income levels, taxing the rich at much higher percentages and redistributing their wealth to poor people through various government programs.
It sounds good, right? The rich already have more than they need, while the poor are struggling to survive. Why not use the tax system to help people in need?
Here's why: The practice of redistributing wealth doesn't work - ever - because it relies on false assumptions about people. It assumes people are basically pure and good, not self-motivated, and are only driven to do bad by social inequity. It wrongly predicts that redistributing wealth will affect the three income levels thusly:
1. Rich people - being pure and good - will not be bitter over having their welath seized.
2. Poor people - being pure and good - will not become dependent upon government assistance.
3. The middle class - being pure and good - will stay just as motivated to produce and achieve,
even with reduced financial incentive. Getting higher and losing more will be just fine with
them.
Lunacy. Sheer lunacy.
In the past century, three countries were split in half after war (Germany, Vietnam and Korea). In each case, one half chose a more socialist economy, while the other chose a more free-market economy. The results? Each time, the more socialist half provided a lower standard of living throughout society. People were hopeless and unmotivated. When the Berlin Wall fell, many fled the side of wealth redistribution.
So should we. In a global market, America can't afford an unmotivated populace. We can't afford false assumptions, no matter how eloquently Obama sells them. We need to reward success and encourage hard work with risk and reward at every level. Remember, even the poor in America live better than most of the world.
There's a reason for that.
It sounds good, right? The rich already have more than they need, while the poor are struggling to survive. Why not use the tax system to help people in need?
Here's why: The practice of redistributing wealth doesn't work - ever - because it relies on false assumptions about people. It assumes people are basically pure and good, not self-motivated, and are only driven to do bad by social inequity. It wrongly predicts that redistributing wealth will affect the three income levels thusly:
1. Rich people - being pure and good - will not be bitter over having their welath seized.
2. Poor people - being pure and good - will not become dependent upon government assistance.
3. The middle class - being pure and good - will stay just as motivated to produce and achieve,
even with reduced financial incentive. Getting higher and losing more will be just fine with
them.
Lunacy. Sheer lunacy.
In the past century, three countries were split in half after war (Germany, Vietnam and Korea). In each case, one half chose a more socialist economy, while the other chose a more free-market economy. The results? Each time, the more socialist half provided a lower standard of living throughout society. People were hopeless and unmotivated. When the Berlin Wall fell, many fled the side of wealth redistribution.
So should we. In a global market, America can't afford an unmotivated populace. We can't afford false assumptions, no matter how eloquently Obama sells them. We need to reward success and encourage hard work with risk and reward at every level. Remember, even the poor in America live better than most of the world.
There's a reason for that.