SHARED MISERY OR INDIVIDUAL PROSPERITY?

By Wade B. Cook

Redistribution of wealth sounds like a great phrase. It is a powerful narrative for trying to convince the people who need extra cash now to vote for you. Politicians use it to win votes from the less fortunate all the time. In theory, it should make society more prosperous as a whole, instead of one person at a time. Think about it. The government takes money form "the rich" then redistributes it to "the poor" for the purpose of reducing the income gap between the two groups of individuals. The government will keep on spreading the wealth around until everyone is the same for the purpose of fairness. Everyone is supposed to be happy.

In reality, the redistribution of wealth plays out totally different. The government will keep on redistributing wealth until everyone is completely the same miserable. The government can only redistribute the wealth around one time for the fact that the rich become less productive immediately. Why would anyone want to work their pants off, when they know the government will step in and take their capital away from them? With the rich becoming less productive, comes less jobs.

Not only will this affect the rich but also the poor. Why would anyone want to be rich if they know it is impossible to be rich? So the poor man who once dreamed of becoming rich will no longer dream of wealth.

The Soviet Union used the phrase "redistribution of wealth" to promote Communism. In other words, redistribution of wealth means communism. It is a code word. After the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of the farmers, food became limited. People were starving to death. Why? Farmers became less productive because they knew the government was going to swoop in any time and confiscate the crops for the purpose of feeding the less fortunate. You see that the wealth can only be taken away once. Government can't confiscate future wealth.

So for mathematicians out there, the equation goes like this: redistribution of wealth = communism = poverty

In a democracy, it is not that easy to confiscate someone's wealth without that person being aware that it is going to happen--- there has to be debates and discussions. No one wants their income up for redistribution, so those who are targeted decide they don't want to make as much money as they did last year. The rich can also decide to evacuate the country. They take with them not only their money, but also the knowledge of what it takes to own and run a business. This is bad because it means less jobs. Today, with communication and electronic money transfers, one can stay here and have money elsewhere.

Government thinks like this: "Billy made $250,000 this year. If we tax him at 40% instead of 35%, we will take in more revenue." If government decides to raise the tax rate, they hardly ever take in more revenue. Because Billy is aware of what is going to happen (tax rates are going up), he decides to make less money because if he makes more money, more will be taken away from him. Why is this so? The world we live in is dynamic. Meaning things are always changing. Nothing is ever going to stay the same. But, the government thinks the world we live in is static, which is why they are wrong all the time.

Margaret Thatcher, a.k.a. "The Iron Lady," was the Prime Minister of England. She was a strong free market capitalist. She helped bring down the Soviet Union, with the help of Ronald Regan and Pope John Paul II. These three were called "The Triumvirate."

Margaret Thatcher moved England away from Socialist/Marxist policies that they had flirted with ever since the 1930's—some remnants remain today that destroyed their society and economy. Oh how the mighty empire needs the Iron Lady once again. In just a few words she gave a powerful indictment of government control of our lives. She said, "Socialism always fails because sooner or later they run out of other people’s money. This in a nutshell explains why nearly every European country is on the skids, heading for bankruptcy."

This is the fate of America if we do not change our ways. For example, before I wrote this, a non-partisan government agency said that for every $7 the government takes in it spends $11. Imagine your household budget like this. How long will it take for you to declare bankruptcy? Did I mention the other $4, I mean $0.42 cents for every $1 spent comes from running up credit card debt. With accruing interest and destructive force of loading our children and grandchildren with this massive debt.

Do we need to increase this debt? Do we need to punish the achiever and take away their more money to pay for this outrageous spending spree? Or first should the household of America trim its expenses and cut back on the money going out?

Let’s look at the redistribution of wealth through the eyes of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Our economy is based on an abundance of freedoms. Now, those freedoms are being curtailed with the insidious encroachment of government. Back to the goose. There is one political persuasion that is dedicated to spreading the golden eggs around—redistribution of wealth, if you will—even if it means destroying the goose that lays those golden eggs. The other political party is trying to conserve and protect the goose. Do you know which political persuasion is which, and where do you fit into this? In short, are you a maker or a taker?

© 2018 Wade B. Cook. All Rights Reserved.

Visit wadecook.org. Check out our new Podcasts and our Blog entries.

Wade Cook