Spreading the Wealth …

As the class warfare struggles continue to come to a head in the US, I keep solidifying my stance of where I stand on the issues.

One issue in particular that I am dead-set against is taxing the rich to feed the poor. This “spread the wealth” mentality is so laughable it isn’t even funny.

So what if the ultra-rich only pay 15% of their incomes as tax (that’s assuming they are only collecting income through the dividends from their investments and not selling any investments where they would be paying 20% tax, or actually still earning a salary, where they would be paying 35% on any income earned over $388,351/year.) Does that mean these people do not contribute anything else to the economy? At all? Do people honestly think they sit at home and hoard their money like Scrooge McDuck? The idea of that is completely laughable.

My fiance and I are at a level of income where we can now afford ourselves the relative luxury of having a housekeeper come to our house once each week and help us with our household chores. Some people may see me as a lazy person for doing so, but I see this is a win-win situation. I am providing income to people who need it and are willing to work for it, and they are providing me with a service I greatly appreciate. In fact I appreciate it so much that we pay them upwards of $20-30/hour (quite a bit more than “minimum wage”).

Another example would be a person that my fiance met at a casino in Las Vegas recently. He was one of the higher-rollers at the table and while he turned his $25,000 into $16,000 – he still generously was tipping the dealers at the table about $500/hour.

Besides that, folks who are well-off, wealthy or just plain stinking rich tend to spend a lot of money. They may spend only a fraction of what they have, but that fraction could easily pay the salaries of multiple people. In fact it often does. Once you get into the upper-echelons of income and wealth you tend to own really big houses. Big houses require a staff to maintain them -full-time maids, butlers, grounds keepers, chauffeurs, maybe even a chef or two. Each of these people earns a salary, and often a decent one (at least one that’s above minimum wage). These wealthy people are already “spreading the wealth” in their own way and on their own terms.

I have absolutely no intention of handing over more of my income to the government as I honestly don’t feel they would do the right thing with that money. They would be collecting it in the spirit of wanting to “spread the wealth” for more people, but in reality they would just line their own pockets with it.

Leave the wealthy (and those of us who aspire to be wealthy) alone, and we’ll spread our wealth much more effectively, and equitably, than the government ever would.

5 responses on “Spreading the Wealth …

  1. Twey

    It’s interesting to note that Norway has a flat 36% wage tax rate, and is the country with the single highest human development index in the world.

    I do somewhat agree that governments don’t tend to spend taxes as they should.  In principle they should be held accountable for this, but the US and UK governments don’t seem to have enough transparency to be truly accountable to anyone.  I suppose the correct response to this, then, is to keep a minimal ‘core wealth’ for a comfortable standard of living and a ‘functional wealth’ to be put into accomplishing whatever task(s) you feel will best help society as a whole, and give the rest away to whatever charity you decide will use it most effectively.

  2. gabiendress

    Twey – I am not against paying taxes and I’m actually in favor of an across-the-board flat tax. My issue is with people wanting to put a heavier tax burden on the rich in order to pay for more services for the poor (which, in my opinion, keep the poor staying poor). 

  3. Twey

     The way I see it, everybody has a right to a reasonably comfortable lifestyle.  When there are people who aren’t getting that, who have trouble affording food or housing, there shouldn’t be people prancing around in sportrs cars.  No amount of hard work entitles someone to the right to starve other people in the process of hoarding their own luxuries, and no amount of laziness on the parts of benefit scroungers disentitles those who really do need benefits to live from getting them.

    And even if there weren’t, surely there are better things to spend one’s money on than Jaguars?  They could put their money towards, for example, educating poor but physically and/or mentally able people in how they can and why they should do their part for society.

  4. gabiendress

    I just thought of a response to this – if the rich stop buying Jaguars, then the Jaguar car company would go away, as would all the jobs that company provides. What would those people do then? 

    Also the poor already receive free education, which is paid for by anyone owning a house through property taxes (rich and poor alike – and there is no “tax shelter” to prevent the rich from paying their fair share of property taxes). There are also free public education facilities for mentally and physically challenged people – many of which receive additional donations from wealthy people in their local communities. 

  5. Twey

    Those people could contribute to society in a more useful way, such as by becoming scientists or doctors or farmers. There is free education, but clearly not of sufficient quality: if it were, there wouldn’t be a problem to start with, as everybody (or almost everybody) would understand the rôle they play in society & not be satisfied to leech off it.

    Saying ‘these poor people have free education because rich people donate to it’ is like saying ‘these slaves have freedom because their masters let them go wherever they like’. When we talk of a *right* to freedom or a *right* to education, it doesn’t just mean that they should have it, it means that nobody should have the power to take it from them.

Leave a Reply