Our Secretary of State and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton said that. Oh yeah, she was nearly president. Look, I'm not going to cite pages of statistics to prove how insanely stupid that statement is. First off, it isn't hard to see that with a progressive income tax, that really cannot be true. In truth, the tax burden is incredibly top heavy. Regardless, I'm not going down that road. If you want to know the truth, the stats are easy to find. If you don't want to know the truth, nothing I say will matter anyway. So let's just use logic, shall we?
I want to start with a few simple truths, and let's see where this leads...
Truth: Make something pleasant for people, and they will do more of it. Make something painful for people, and they will do less of it.
Truth: It makes good sense to emulate those that have accomplished something worthwhile.
Truth: There really is no such thing as a Win/Lose scenario.
OK, what does that mean?
You hear a great deal lately about the so-called 'rich', right? Well...who are these people? Where did they get their money? Why does Hillary think they are not paying their fair share?
The definition that gets thrown around most often is that you are 'rich' if you make more than $250k per year, but that really is overly simplistic. Small businesses are generally taxed as individuals, and the implications of that make it possible for a small businessman to appear 'rich' and be anything but. We'll leave that as another discussion for another time.
Among the 'rich', you have folks that have made billions by starting tech companies; folks that have inherited trust funds; folks that have a skill playing a sport, acting, singing, dancing, rapping; folks that have invented things; folks that run businesses; etc. Within this group you tend to find some pretty smart and pretty talented people, not all of them of course, but a good number. Within this group, you have a wide disparity of talents and abilities, but generally people that have risen to the top of their respective games have done so because they are the best at what they do.
Within this group you also have a small group of some pretty bad eggs. Those that think the law doesn't apply to the them. Those that are greedy. Those that are hateful. They certainly exist, but they aren't the majority.
Among those that are not 'rich', the majority work hard and are good people raising families, going to church, and being leaders in their communities. A small percentage don't work, but most do, and they work hard, sometimes more than one job. They are good mechanics, plumbers, electricians, coal miners, managers, truck drivers, retail clerks, etc. Many are very good at what they do, and they are diligent and do their jobs well.
Within this group you also have a small group of bad eggs. They are lazy. They take and don't give back. They don't do good work. They don't care. And like the 'rich', the bad ones are the minority of this group.
So...among both groups, you have mostly good and some bad. It has nothing to do with being 'rich' or not, it has to do with the content of their character. Last time I checked, 'character' is not a line on a personal financial statement.
Now...of those two groups...who do most people aspire to be more like? Why?
Of those two groups, who has created more jobs?
Of those two groups, who has more influence on the culture at large?
Why does any of that even matter?
When you use class warfare to gain political advantage, you denigrate the 'rich'. Yet the 'rich' are what we tend to aspire to, to look up to. This is destructive. People need role models and people need goals. Our society is far better off when me make it our goal to be like successful people rather than to resent successful people. I would far rather my kids aspire to be like Bill Gates, than to hate Bill Gates and aspire to be like the truck driver that drives the garbage truck. Which is not to say that truck driver doesn't have character traits my kids should emulate, he might and those are to be valued...but...Mr. Gates is currently running a charity that affects the lives of millions of people, and I daresay the truck driver's influence doesn't extent quite so far.
When you heavily tax those who do the best while heavily subsidizing those who do the worst, you will get less folks doing well and more folks doing badly. It just works that way. You want an economy that grows out of control? Invert the tax structure. Subsidize success and tax failure. People will be clawing their way out of lower income brackets to get lower taxes, and in doing so, would bust their tails and build the economy. Yeah, I know it won't ever happen...but it would work.
When you take from the 'rich' to subsidize the poor, you demotivate those that create jobs and motivate those that don't even work. This is not in the long term best interest of anyone. Again, you want to bust it wide open? Provide a permanent tax credit to business for every job they create. It wouldn't have to be a large credit, but when you make it worthwhile for businesses to create jobs...subsidize what you want more of...you'll get jobs.
The only way for our society to get ahead is for us all to help the strongest among us to scale the wall, and then reach down and pull the others up. When we burden the 'rich', we are trying to get out by pulling on the guy immediately above us...nobody gets out. To even suggest that the 'rich' are not doing their fair share is to pull the ladder out from under those that have the best shot at pulling us out. It's misguided thinking at the very best, and most likely destructive. It is the core of Socialist, Communist, and Marxist thought. It has been tried, thoroughly, and it doesn't work. And you know who else it sounds like? Oh yeah...Democrats.
Poor people...be very careful what you wish for. You just might get it. And here's the kick in the teeth...the 'rich' will be fine either way...it's always the poor that suffer. If you want to get ahead, find a 'rich' person with some character and start pushing.
No comments:
Post a Comment