Posted on 09/25/2012 10:52:00 AM PDT by Mr. K
Redistibution means taking away from one person to give to someone else.
It is Theft.
It is Wrong, no matter how "fair" you think you are being.
Just ask your kids- if you take something away from one to give to the other they will instantly know "that's NOT fair"
But it is WORSE than that- it is the destruction of potential wealth.
Just like the "Broken Glass" theory is 100% back-asswards, so is "redistribution"
Let me use my favorite example.
Two people in a fictional closed system containing a starting value of $100.
Alan has $100 and Bob has nothing. The government takes $40 from Alan to 'redistribute' to Bob in Welfare payments.
There is $100 still in this example, $60 in Alan's pocket and $40 in Bob's.
But Bob has no incentive to go look for work, he is getting money for nothing. And Alan is Pissed off that he got $40 taken from him to give to someone who didnt earn it.
There is still only $100 in this whole system and two poorly motivated people. No new wealth.
But... with the same $100..
If Alan hires Bob to build him a boat, and pays him $40 for it, then let's see what you have.
Alan has $60 left in his pocket, but he also now has a $40 boat, so he still has the equivalent of his original $100.
Bob has $40 in his pocket and a job and a new skill.
There is now $140 in this system- ($60 + $40 + a $40 boat)
New wealth was created by LABOR and not redistribution.
In addition Alan is happy with his new boat. Bob is happy with his new job.
---------------------------------
But that is not even the worst part.
The government admits Welfare is only 27% efficient (lets round it to 30)
So In order to give $30,000 per year to a family on Welfare 'benefits' it has to TAKE IN $100,000.
$70,000 is lost in the paperwork,.. or the equivalent of a darn good full time salary.
So, there is the equivalent of one full time government employee for each family on welfare.
Even if I am wrong by half there is still the equivalent of one fulltime government employee for each TWO famiiles on welfare
It would be cheaper just to give the Welfare Family Household leader a $30,000 job.
A LOT cheaper.
---------------------------------------------
And this is what CHURCHES and CHARITIES do. They do it at around 85% efficiency or better
I would like anyone who can say this better than me to contact me and lets collaborate on a book "Liberalism (for dummies)"
I have had this argument several times. I always ask when was wealth distributed the first time?
Those who practice charity by taxation and redistribution of wealth in effect practice charity by the sword, which is no charity at all. Where once a man had wealth freely to distribute, he now has it confiscated and spent by agents often of contrary will and purpose; agents who would prefer to ingratiate themselves and adduce more power, neither of which is characteristic of charity.
A quick comparison of Romney, VP Bite-me and 0boober's charitable contributions, as reported in their tax returns , will bear this out.
The wealth was never ‘distributed” the 1st time...it was earned by one and not the other. There were no $$gods deciding winners and losers, contrary to the myths you may have heard.
Does this description make sense to you?
I have tried to refine it many times, you would think people would be horrified at the thoug of one government worker per welfare family - but no one seems to notice
I know there is not LITERALLY one per family, but the EQUIVALENT OF
When you ask a leftist when was the wealth distributed the first time it usually ends the argument and they are mad and call me a racist.
Very good example. I like it. During arguments with leftists Going into a thoughtful and well planned argument is hard because democrats have no sense of respect for others. They will talk over with talking points.
I always try to condense certain arguments into a single line or question.
Reagan stopped liberal rants and arguments so many times with a well planned one liner or question.
In pursuing the same description I’ve explored the reverse angle on the same point. Tell me if this makes sense...
Creating wealth is different from redistributing money, and both wealth and money (there’s a difference) are not durable.
Too many assume that the economy is just a matter of stirring the pot, getting money to move around. If somebody doesn’t have money, they can just be given money from somewhere else and that’s supposed to resolve a problem.
A hamburger is something with intrinsic value. That’s wealth.
As a farmer (I’m not), I could take nigh unto nothing and raise a cow, lettuce, tomatoes, and wheat - then make a hamburger. That’s creating wealth.
You could buy that hamburger from me for $1; we exchange a token of value for something of value. That’s money.
You eat the hamburger, which is something with intrinsic value; the value is digested. Wealth is not durable.
I have $1, and a few hours later you’re hungry again; because you have no money, Barry takes that dollar from me and gives it to you. That’s redistributing money.
I sold my hamburger and was taxed 100% on my revenue from it; because I have nothing taxable but am now poor, Barry prints another dollar and gives it to me - there is now $2, but the value of each dollar suffers 50% inflation. Money is not durable.
Now we have two dollars and no hamburgers. All value has been destroyed, and no matter how much money is printed there is no more value until someone creates it independent of the money supply.
Creation of wealth attracts money; those lacking wealth give money to obtain it. Wealth being non-durable, the latter soon find themselves with neither. Leftists think they can just take money from the former and give it to the latter, and are perplexed by (A) the continuing accumulation of money by wealth creators, and (B) the decline of wealth creation as wealth creators see little benefit beyond giving away what they create just so they can keep getting their own money back. As wealth creation declines, more money is printed in the theory that it can buy more wealth, and more prohibitory regulations are enacted to shore up the flow of money within the system - further discouraging additional wealth creation. Those thinking money=wealth end up destroying the creation of value, leaving an economy with lots of money to spend and nothing to buy.
Yowsah! that was a good'un!
can I use it in "What's wrong with Liberalism (for dummies i.e. liberals)" (Title is ever-evolving work in progress)
thats good- i like that
Ahh...gotcha.
Sorry...a little slow sometimes...
Sure, go nuts. It needs some refining: want the taxation at 50%, not 100%, without complicating things. Have at it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.