Actions Matter

Socialists running for President are having a tough time this week with this whole wealth redistribution thing.

Bernie Sanders was asked why he hasn’t paid “his fair share” in taxes.  He noted in the town hall his 2016 campaign advocated for a 52% tax rate on the wealthy (which includes him).  When pressed by Martha MacCallum on why he hasn’t paid that (he’s taken advantage of all the tax breaks afforded under the changes passed by Congress and signed by President Trump), his response was purely reactionary, essentially -- well why don’t you?  It seems to be a standard for socialist politicians – you all should pay more, but I won’t unless forced to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Bernie keeping his money as long as he complies with the tax requirements, but then I’m not suggesting the rich pay more either.  If you advocate for a high tax rate to pay for government spending, and are not willing to voluntarily pay that much yourself then all you are doing is advocating for less freedom for others.

The exchange:

Marth MacCallum: “So would you be willing to pay 52% on the money that you made? You can volunteer, you can send it back”

Bernie: “You can volunteer too…why don’t you give? You make more money than I do”

MacCallum: “I didn’t suggest a wealth tax”

Bret Baier: “And she’s not running for POTUS”

Then, to deflect the questioning, he launched into the "let's see Trump's tax returns" defense.

Beto O’Rourke was asked by a student at the University of Virginia why his charitable donations are so low when compared to others (averaging about .7% compared to 3-4% as a national average).  His response was: "There are charities that we've donated to that we've recorded and itemized, others that we've donated to that we have not," O'Rourke said. "I'll tell you, I'm doing everything I can right now, spending this time with you, not with our kiddos, not back home in El Paso, because I want to sacrifice everything to make sure that we meet this moment of truth with everything we've got."[1]

Essentially, O’Rourke’s answer is he is so important his time running for office is his donation.

There are a number of studies that highlight the different views of liberals and conservatives regarding charitable donations, but I find nothing that suggests one group is more or less charitable than the other.  The one thing I do find is one group thinks it’s the government's job to provide for the basic needs of the people, while the other group thinks the government’s job is to set the framework for success and let the people succeed or fail under that framework.  The charities the two groups contribute to reflect that philosophical difference.

---

[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/04/15/beto-orourke-releases-10-years-tax-returns-shows-366000-income-2017

The Trouble with Wealth and Its Redistribution

I’ve met very few people who are actually happy with being poor.  I know of a few who do believe the accumulation of wealth is to be avoided and humble lives serving society or God is better, but it has been my experience these are rare individuals.  I would bet for every one of these humble humans there are three or four hundred others who given a choice would choose individual wealth over the service to others model. 

But these two extremes are both minority views.  For the vast majority of our society we strive for rewarding lives that do not require vast wealth, but certainly seek to be comfortable and secure in the idea that their physical needs for shelter and food are met.  There is also a sense in our society that individual worth is measured not in the good acts of the individual but by the wealth an individual can acquire.  For example, let’s look at a baseball player.  How do the MLB owners show their appreciation for the talents of a great player?  They reward them with contracts that create significant fortunes for those able to secure them.  I would guess if you look at all of professional baseball, the number of players earning $15M/year or more would be about the top 1% of the profession.  Wouldn’t it be better if the owners took half of what they will pay a star and have that money put into increased wages for the minor league players who struggle each day to pay their bills and earn a living?  Surely the star won’t mind, he has more than he needs and it’s better for baseball.

Our society is like MLB.  There are those who through talent, good fortune, or family circumstance are wealthy far beyond what is required to meet their basic needs.  Why aren't they obligated to give their excess wealth away to the members of society that have not risen to the top, and who struggle to survive?

So what’s the problem, why can’t we do this and make society a much better place where there is no poverty?  Here are just a few of things to consider, if you can fix these then I think it is clear sailing to Utopia.

Greed – This seems to be an inescapable human condition.  We all seem to want as much of something as we can get, and once we have it we don’t want to give it up.  How do we overcome greed?  How do we convince the entirety of the population they should not be greedy?  We see efforts on the part of the liberal establishment to accuse corporations and the wealthy of being greedy, but they exhibit the very same qualities when we start talking about their money and not someone else’s.  I think the first evidence that society will be making progress eliminating greed is when we stop seeing people killing each other for money, envy, or jealousy. 

Personal Ambition – Historically this has been a quality that separates the successful from the failures.  This should not be confused with people who have failed, but rather those who give up when failing.  As Thomas Edison allegedly said “I’ve not failed, I have discovered 10,000 ways it won’t work.”  That dogged determination is foundational to the success of America.  If the population is given wealth, with no expectation of achievement tied to it, will America continue as it has or will we cease to exist?  How will you stop the ambition of some to succeed beyond the rest and rise to a level above the others?  For the later will be equally bad if we are talking about a Utopia were everyone is equal.

Political Agenda’s and Government Incompetence.  I put these together because they seem to go hand-in-hand.  On the one side we have shown when either of the political parties tries to do something it will never turn out as they promise.  For example, all those who are talking about income inequity never seem to have a plan that does not involve writing new laws or creating new taxes.  I would point out that one of the reasons income inequity exists to the degree it does is because we have created loopholes for some, programs for others, and tax shelters for the rest.  Each and every new law or regulation we implement, regardless of Democrat or Republican sponsorship has done its small part in widening the gap between the rich and the poor.  So to believe we solve this problem with more government involvement flies in the face of common sense.  As Albert Einstein defined it, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”  So I have to wonder, why do we think our government can make this better?  My conclusion is we don’t!  It is just a convenient sharpening stone for those with political axes.  They push the mime because it plays well to their fan base.

So there you have my synopsis of the minor hurdles to solving the income inequity problems created by having rich people getting richer and poor people staying poor.