Our economy is in pretty bad shape right now, and at such a time it is particularly bad to “spread the wealth around.” It is both shortsighted and immoral.
It is shortsighted because at such a time we need more businesses. We need more businesses to create more jobs for people. Earning a living at a job is a whole lot better than getting a monthly check from “the government.” At least I think it is. We need more businesses to increase productivity so that a greater supply of goods and services will bring prices down. Lower prices will make it easier for working-class people to provide for themselves and for their families. We need more businesses to create wealth, so that people will spend that wealth on the goods and services that working class people provide–thus keeping more of them working. If wealthy people horde their wealth out of fear, then fewer people are getting paid for their goods and services, and less money is in circulation.
What we really do not need right now is to have companies driven out of business. We do not need to have amibtious young people give up their plans to start new businesses. Where will the jobs come from then? Where will people earn money to spend to drive the economy? How will people pay off their debts? What will happen to big business if nobody has extra money to invest in those companies? What will happen to people’s retirement funds if they are invested in those companies? And–for my more liberal friends–where will the increased tax revenues come from to pay for the government programs that you love so much?
It is immoral to spread wealth, because it means taking money from people who produce and giving it to people who do not. That’s just plain wrong. I don’t care how much lipstick you put on that pig, it is still a pig. Taking things from people by force is called stealing–in any other context than government confiscation of wealth.
It is also immoral because it is deceptive. Politicians who want to spread wealth around are promising more than they can deliver. They make themselves out to be secular messiahs who can answer our every prayer and grant our every wish. But the more they burden business and stifle the creation of wealth, the less wealth there is to spread around. The less money the government has to spend. Their programs will not be sustainable, because eventually (after how many trillions in the red, I don’t know) the money tree will be picked clean. Then these all-powerful saviors will have to tell the starry-eyed people who voted for them: “Sorry there isn’t any more.”
It is immoral to create a class of people, as we have done, who are completely dependent on the few crumbs that Uncle Sam gives them. Are people better off as slaves to Uncle Sam than they would be as slaves to an individual? No. It is better for people to have jobs and earn their money and have dignity and pride in what they have accomplished for themselves. I have watched my parents do it their whole lives. One time they actually got government assistance, and they both said, “Never again!” They decided that it would be better for each of them to have two jobs than to be dependent on the labor of others.
Which brings us back to the shortsighted bit. People need jobs, and jobs are created by businesses, and businesses thrive where they are free and where it actually pays to start new ones. By starting businesses, working class people can become middle-class people. By investing the money they earn in business, middle class people can become wealthy people. And while they are moving upward economically, they are stimulating the economy and giving other people opportunities to follow in their footsteps. That’s what real opportunity is–it’s not a few food stamps or a substandard house in a crime-ridden neighborhood. It’s having the chance to get a job and work your way up the economic ladder.
I have a better idea than spreading wealth around. Let’s spread freedom around. Let’s spread the ideals of responsibility and hard work around. Let’s spread the admiration for producers and inventors and employers around. Let’s spread joy whenever businesses earn a profit, since that means the investors will be able to retire well and the company might create even more jobs. Then we might actually improve people’s lives–including the poorest among us.
9 responses so far ↓
helenl // October 26, 2008 at 11:36 am |
Spreading the wealth isn’t “immoral.” If it were “immoral” to share the wealth, why did the early church do so? You just don’t want the government to do it, which is a legitimate position.
cindyinsd // October 26, 2008 at 8:32 pm |
I know what you’re talking about, RG, even if Helen is being deliberately “dense” just to irritate you.
Of course you’re right about this. It’s kind of a duuuuh moment, really, but I think Barack Obama understands all this too. He’s just willing to say whatever it takes to get the power. (He doesn’t need the money–he has plenty he hasn’t spread around yet.)
As for spreading the wealth, that’s fine, as Helen said, so long as you’re spreading your own wealth around. Let other people do the same. American people are generous to a fault. I think letting people do their own charity would work great.
God bless,
Cindy
Gary Baumgarten // October 26, 2008 at 8:42 pm |
We’ll be discussing Obama’s “spread the wealth” taxation plan on News Talk Online at 5 PM NY time Monday October 27.
Please go to http://www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the Join The Show button to participate. There is no charge.
Thanks
American Elephant // October 27, 2008 at 1:44 am |
Helen,
Voluntary spreading of the wealth by individuals is entirely moral. It’s called charity. Compulsory spreading of the wealth is stealing.
What’s irksome is that some people have actually deluded themselves into believing they are being generous by voting for the government to spend other people’s money.
And what’s even more irksome is this misnomer, “THE wealth”. It is an entirely wrong headed notion. It erroneously supposes both that there is a finite amount and that it is the government’s place to distribute it.
Collectivism contradicts just about every principle the United States was founded upon. “THE” wealth does not belong to the government, it belongs to 300 million individuals. It is not a finite sum. Wealth can be and is created and increased. If one person becomes more wealthy, it is not because someone else becomes less wealthy. The amount of wealth any one person has is limited only by imagination, opportunity, initiative and government. By taking more and more of people’s wealth in the name of do-goodery, you make millions and millions of people MORE dependent on others, not more independent.
And by taking from the wealthy to “do good” for the needy, all you do is confiscate money that would otherwise be used for jobs, raises, investment, and use it to make people more dependent on government.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day — tomorrow he will be just as needy as before. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Helen, bless you, but you are giving out fish. That’s all liberalism is. We are teaching fishing classes.
Scott Erb // October 27, 2008 at 7:27 am |
Practically: societies with wide disparities of wealth tend to become unstable, as the have nots rebel against the haves. Morally, when people are super rich, while others who are very productive and work hard have problems taking care of their families, something is wrong. Money shouldn’t be taken from people who are productive to give to people who are not, in most cases. But in our system money often flows from the people who are productive to the people who are lucky enough to have been born into situations where they are wealthy without having to work much. It’s very complex. Certainly the market doesn’t magically come up with a just result. Government planning can’t do it either. Pragmatic policy trying to balance interests and look at both questions of justice and questions of economic growth is the best choice. The stereotypes each side have of the other: the left fantasizes that the right is simply greedy and uncaring of the workers, the right fantasizes that the left wants to give lazy do nothings free money, depraving the hard working, are wrong. Both sides have a bit of the truth. But reality doesn’t follow any ideology, ideologies are too shallow to capture the complex practical and moral issues at stake.
Eve // October 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm |
A comment to Helen: the early church did not “spread the wealth around” indiscriminately, nor did Jesus ever teach we should do so. He said, in fact, that the ones who made best use of the talents given them would be given more by the master, and the ones who made little to no use of them would have what they had taken away. Harsh, by your standards, I’d guess.
St. Paul taught, “if a man will not work, neither should he eat.” He said that the slothful were to be put out of fellowship until they repented of their sin; and, yes, sloth is sinful. Harsh by your standards, I’d guess.
And yet this same Bible teaches God’s mercy, that He is one who blesses the evil and the good alike, and that He is no respecter of persons, and that He sent his only son to die for the sins of all. Every single person. That is the greatest charity, and I’d guess that you’ll agree.
But I agree with RG. There is a morality of giving the resources entrusted to us by God.
helenl // October 31, 2008 at 11:53 am |
Eve, I don’t support spreading wealth around “indiscriminately,” nor did I say Jesus taught that we should. Hard work should always be rewarded. I have never said otherwise.
But I think we need to stop labeling people “lazy,” when we don’t know their circumstances and abilities. Everyone should work. Is it work, when a mother stays home and cares for her children? Anyone who’s ever taken care of children knows, it’s hard work. So what if she’s a single parent. Does the child-care load somehow become easier?
Putting people out (not helping them) for the sin of sloth implies, everyone believes in sloth. Do they? Is there some other reason for not wanting to share?
I think it gets very complicated. And while I think we should ask questions before “giving people money” (from a church or the government), we have to be careful that we help people not only eat but learn how to work.
Without food one cannot work. Without work one cannot produce food. We must break the cycle. We must consider what constitutes work.
Greg Gyetko // October 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm |
Why would it be relevant what Jesus said? Did Jesus live in a time of reserve fiat currency, predatory lending and subprime mortgages packaged in to opaque investment vehicles?
As I understand it, all that your presidential candidate is proposing is to shift the tax burden further toward wealthier people – as it was a decade ago. This puts more money in to the hands of people who spend it in to their local economies rather than on big budget items that might not even be in the country.
I believe, if you want to go with the 2000 year-old hippie, you’ll find that he told his followers to judge themselves by how well they treated the least of their brothers – not by how rich the rich could get.
American Elephant // November 1, 2008 at 8:43 am |
I dont think it gets complicated at all, Helen.
What constitutes work is making or performing something of enough value to someone else that they are willing to pay you for it of their own accord.
That doesn’t mean you should be paid for everything that requires effort.
You should brush your teeth, I’m not willing to pay you to do it. You should walk your dog. I’m not willing to pay you to do it. You should clean your home, be a good neighbor, volunteer for charity, and yes, you should raise your child, but no, I am not willing to pay you to do those things. If you cant afford to raise a child, don’t have children. If you dont have the time to walk and care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one.
Its called personal responsibility, Helen, and its one of the fundamental principles of our society — one that liberalism is quickly destroying.
If you look at my blog today, you’ll see a video in which a woman is overcome with emotion at a Barack Obama rally. She is overjoyed at the prospect of him becoming president. Why? Because, she says, she wont have to worry about paying for gas or paying her mortgage. Obama will do it for her.
That is the inevitable consequence of the type of government you advocate. Government takes the place of personal responsibility. It has already destroyed the family in the black community. Is that not destruction enough?
There is no cycle like the kind you speak of. Our society already feeds the hungry. (Those who are willing to accept the help) . They have food, so by your admission, they can work.
But why work when Barack Obama and Helen want to take money from other people and pay you not to ? Pay you to do the things you should be doing anyway. Obama wants to pay people to “volunteer”! Helen wants to pay people to raise kids. What do you think will happen to real volunteerism if people have the choice of doing it for free, or doing it for a check? What do you think will happen if people can get paid by going to a job they dont like very much, or get paid to stay home and have kids?
Personal responsibility. Duty. Charity. Liberalism destroys them all!
(By the way, did you hear Obama talk in his commercial about how he wants to create civilian armies? They tried that in Europe, you know. It was called the Gestapo.)