Skip to comments.On 'Inequality'
Posted on 06/02/2016 5:51:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Is there a more brain-dead concept than to empower the government to fight "income inequality"? What sane, normal, rational human being thinks that human talent, drive, interests and opportunity can -- or should -- result in equal outcomes?
Despite my love of athletics, I knew in third grade that my friend, Keith, could run much faster than I could. For two years I played Little League ball, and I got better at it. But no matter how hard I tried or how many hours I spent, I could not hit, run or throw as well as my friend Benji. Later in life, I started playing tennis, and I became quite passionate about it. But most of the people I played against had started playing years earlier, and most had taken lessons for years. I got better, but given my competitors' head start, the gap remained. Financial planners advise clients to start early and stick to some sort of game plan. Is there any wonder that those who do so will have more net worth than those who started later, or who lacked the discipline to follow and stick to a plan? How is government supposed to address these "unequal" outcomes?
Most entrepreneurs experience failure before hitting on an idea, concept or business that makes money. Even then, it takes 20 to 30 years of long hours and sacrifice, along with occasional self-doubt and a dollop of luck, to become a multimillionaire.
I recently saw a movie starring Cate Blanchett. She is a very good actress, but she is also strikingly beautiful. Is there any doubt that her good looks, over which she had no control, are a factor in her success? Is it unfair that an equally talented actress, but with plain looks, will likely have an "unequal" career compared with that of Blanchett? Speaking of acting, most who venture into that field do not become successful, if success is defined as making a living as an actor. These overwhelming odds still do not deter the many young people who flock to Hollywood every year to "make it."
Had a would-be actor dedicated that same drive and personality to some other profession, success would have been more likely, if less enjoyable. Should the government intervene and take from the successful non-actor and give to those who unsuccessfully pursued a long-shot acting career? An ex-actor told me of her recent lunch with a friend she had met when they both left college and pursued acting. While the ex-actor moved on to a different, successful career, her friend stuck to acting, through thick and thin. The actor informed her friend that she recently turned down a commercial. Why? What struggling actor turns down this kind of work? Turns out, through some sort of "assistance" program, said the friend, the state of California is "assisting with her mortgage." She has no obligation to repay the money, and she will continue to receive the assistance as long as her income is not above a certain level. How does this strengthen the economy? The ex-actor, through her taxes, subsidizes the lifestyle of the actor, who admits turning down work lest she be denied the benefits.
But this is exactly the world sought by Bernie Sanders -- a government that taxes the productive and gives to the less productive in order to reduce "income inequality." In the real world, two individuals, living next door to each other, make different choices about education, careers, spouses, where to live, and if and how to invest. Even if they make exactly the same income, one might live below his or her means, prudently saving money, while the other might choose to regularly buy new cars and fancy clothes and go on expensive vacations. Is there any question that the first person will end up with a higher net worth than the latter? Is their "inequality" something that government should address?
Although Beyoncé is a good singer, is there any question that there are others with superior voices? But Beyoncé is also blessed with "unequally" good looks, charisma and perhaps better management -- maybe better than the other two ladies in her musical trio, Destiny's Child, whom she once sang with. Three singers, in the same group, have had "unequal" outcomes.
Communism, collectivism and socialism rest on the same premise -- that government possesses the kindness, aptitude, judgment and ability to take from some and give to others to achieve "equality." Karl Marx wrote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." And that's the problem. The statement implicitly acknowledges that some have more aptitude, drive, energy and ability than others. To take from some and give to others reduces the initiative of both the giver and the givee. This is the fundamental flaw with income redistribution, the very foundation of communism, socialism and collectivism. One would think that Bernie Sanders would have figured this out by now. But wisdom among 74-years-olds, like outcome, is not distributed equally.
Democrats created welcome inequality with its FED policy and importing millions of illegals who deflate the lower end of the pay scale.
Illegal Immigration and the Wage Gap
If a politician can convince you that he can fix income “inequality”...
and you go for it, realize it or not, you have just made him king. Because now he gets to decide how much you have, and how much you get to keep. With one move across the chess board he now owns it all.
>>But Beyoncé is also blessed with “unequally” good looks,<<
I am sure the government will ensure that she must redistribute her butt so hundreds of white chicks can have butts, too!
The entire premise rests on the virtue of the State.
But States are simply made of men, with the same weaknesses and problems as other men.
There is an optimum level of power for the State, and the United States has passed that level.
One of the greatest contributions of the United States is the experiment that proves that limited government is better than unlimited government.
Men have a natural craving for God. Many who deny God fill the craving by worshipping the State.
It is all over the news here in Omaha, that there are multiple sites set up to feed people for “free” over the summer, since the schools are out. This is funded (we are told) by the U S Dept of Agriculture. This is due to there are people with “food insecurity” living here. I guess that would be a form of “food inequality”. Something about, I have to pay for my own food, and I have to pay for their food. They probably get better food than I do. I expect the government will come up with more ways to make the income of those who don’t work to be equal to my income, so there will be no more “income inequality”.
Entropy drives a system, causes things to happen.
Socialism ==> "complete equality" ==> zero entropy ==> stagnation and death.
Actually, it is more basic than this. Income inequality, race, alternative lifestyles, health, food.. these are all vehicles to get elected. Once in power, the politician who fought for these things will forget them. Hitler needed the union members to vote for him to win. He promised to fight hard for them. Once in office, like the next day, he banned all unions. Socialists need to control education to make sure their minions can never learn from the past.
We take care of our grand daughter now, and our own kid kids haven’t been in school in many years, so we’ve been going through a learning curve about the school system again.
One of the striking things I noticed was how much the schools PUSH free lunches.
I mean, they are down right in your face about it.
I am of retired age, but I still work, and I have money, and will not take assistance, we don’t need it, it ain’t right.
But we not only get pushed at registration, we have gotten phone calls from the district, just harassing us.
I talked to a fella who told me that the reason they push for it, is that it gives the district Fed money. So, for every say dollar they spend on underprivileged kids meals, they get like ten bucks from the feds because then they can claim this kid is underprivileged, and not only do they need money for lunches, but all sorts of programs, so it’s like a 10 to 1 ratio that they get.
It’s a scam.
This fella also told me that you’d be surprised to learn that over half the kids in my school district (and I’m in a pretty nice district) are on some sort of aid from the feds.
“equal” means the same amount. Income equality means that everyone gets the same amount. The ruling elite obviously doesn’t mean that. They want to continue living high off the hog while the rest of us struggle.
How is it "fair" that a small business owner who spends the better part of his life building his trade through hard labor and honest practice be taxed so that a man who has never worked at all and who survives by cheating and robbing others may prosper? How is it "fair" that a middle-class family can't send their daughter to college because they are taxed so heavily they can't save the money, yet an "inner-city" spawn of an unemployable mother and an absent father gets a free ride on the taxpayer's dime? How is it "fair" that a waitress working night shifts at a truck stop has to pay for her insurance but an illegal alien with a brood of anchor babies gets hers for free?
What ever happened to merit being the measure by which rewards were disbursed?
I have never had an answer to this question: When you sit down to play Monopoly, everyone is equal, equal money, govt owns everything. After 4 hours of play, one person is rich, the others are bankrupt. When did it go from fair to unfair? Show me that point please.
Larry Elder has a daily radio program that is very good. If you come across it while channel surfing, listen for a while.
Any tax against property, whether it be personal property, real estate, or income, is inherently socialist because it declares that your property does not belong exclusively to you but to the Collective in some portion.
“”Be better, work harder, get smarter.””
You’re parroting the author here and you’re right. I listened to Larry Elder on the radio for years and when mumbling and grumbling from the blacks was in the news for whatever reason, he always said, “Arrive early and stay late” pertaining to working for a living and succeeding.
They didn’t get any sympathy from him nor should they. He fought many battles they started to get him off the air. I’ve moved out of the area so I don’t know if he still has a radio program. His common sense was much appreciated by everyone except the blacks.
“When did it go from fair to unfair? Show me that point please.”
Social activists will say the game was rigged from the start.
Your white (privilege) dice each go up to 6.
The minorities are playing with black dice, which only go up to 3.
Every time you pass go, you must give a portion of your cash and properties to the minority players to compensate for the inherent injustice of the game.
Late 1970s... hmmm... who was running things then?
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.