But in some cases its different. Many people who have lots of money hardly
worked at all. I won't disagree that Government is inefficient. But to
say all of our fore-fathers worked hard to get their money is a lie.
Keith,Aren't all taxes a form of redistribution of wealth?Well, it is irrefutable that money is moving upward.Can
someone prove to me that either1) the rich are getting smarter and working
harderOR2) the poor and middle class are getting dumber and
lazierUnless one or both of these are happening, then the system is
rigged in favor of the wealthy.And that would constitute a
"redistribution of wealth"
America has gone from being a nation of great achievers a decade ago and has
become a nation where the majority of people are now entitlement receivers. We
used to lead the world in accomplishments in every area; technology, medicine,
education, engineering and philanthropy. Some politicians, clamoring for
political power told us to despise the achievers and convinced voters that
“economic justice” means that the receivers should obtain wealth
they didn’t earn by income redistribution, healthcare they don’t pay
for and entitlements they did not earn by any effort on their part. I have no
doubt Obama will be re-elected by the majority of people in America who are on
the receiving end. The real definition of justice means we ultimately will
receive what we have earned, what we deserve not what someone else has earned.
Double digit inflation awaits us and a total economic collapse (real economic
justice) before the end of Obama’s second term. Why? Massive debt as the
Obama administration continues to borrow our future to pay for the
The actual "wealth creators" are those who actually make something, not
those who never lift a finger except to push a "buy/sell" button for
their stock portfolio.
It's so nice to read this letter, I'm sure Mr. Rienholt will be the
first to advocate eliminating the onerous property taxes that we pay in Utah for
public schools. As a small business person I will use the extra $12,000. per
year to continue my role as a job creator, and since we have never had children
we can count on all parents to see to it that all of their children get a
quality self funded education. All this socialist redistribution of my wealth,
for public schools, is just killing my desire to improve our properties, and
create more jobs.Let's show the rest of the country we mean business
(pun intended), and get rid of SOCIALIZED EDUCATION!
This letter is absolute, total nonsense. It's all I can do to not user
stronger language."When government takes from those who create
to redistribute the wealth, it is consumed without bettering either the creator
or the recipient. "Are you seriously saying that roads, bridges,
airports and waterways do not benefit American citizens? Or the myriad private
contractors who build and maintain them? Food inspectors? Police?
Fire fighters? Paramedics? Teachers? Libraries? National Parks? You're not
"better" for these things?"Government is also inherently
inefficient and wasteful."That's also absolute nonsense.
Two points: First, most government functions operate under
expectations of transparency and public accountability. You know what's
really "efficient?" Corruption. I therefore expect transparency and
accountability from government, and that of necessity slows them down a little.
I'm OK with that.Second, "efficiency" is a tricky word
where public sector services are concerned and how you define it and what you
choose to measure makes a big different in the score. Ever heard of apples vs.
oranges?Chest-thumping about "redistribution" is popular
with conservatives these days, but it doesn't change the fact that
it's still a ridiculous load of nonsense.
I see another "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand reader.BTW - The
Paris Hiltons [and MOST wealthy people] inheirted their $$$, they are hardly job
creators.Even Mitt Romney vulture capitalism, and his kids
"trust funds" will never "work" to create wealth.Buying and selling stock, or collecting interest is called "money
changing", it creates NOTHING.
Govt. is neither efficient nor inefficient. Rather, it does some things poorly
and and other things well - if it is correctly organized and incentivized.In my experience, when Govt. does poorly things that it should do well
it is most often because politics has been injected into the process. An
example might be when the military says cut A and B from our budget but
congressmen say to instead cut X and Y (because A and B affect their
districts).The concept that all taxation is bad argues for no govt.
at all. In such a circumstance, there would be no wealth for anyone except the
warlords. One of the first things settlers did in an area was to bring law and
order to the area via govt. Why? Because it allows the farmers, merchants, and
others to go about their business.For certain endeavors (highways,
airports, dams, etc.) govt. is essential and becomes an indirect wealth creator
for a region.If we wish to argue that this or that program is
unnecessary or improper - fine. Let's have that discussion. Otherwise be
VERY careful what you ask for.
Government has authority to tax us for the specific things listed in the
Constitution. ALL of us is required tp pay for those things. NONE of us is
exempt. The STATES were accessed a portion of the cost of those things, based
on their population, not on their wealth. The 16th Amendment changed that:"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration."That change in
HOW we are taxed did not extend government's authority to create new
projects to tax us for. Those "projects" are enumerated in Article 1,
Section 8. Anything not listed there is to be left to the States or to the
People:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."Redistribution of wealth is not
found in the Constitution. It is a despicable tool used by people in power to
retain their power. It transfers business building wealth from the people to
the government - where it is wasted on pork projects.
Just another letter designed to keep the liberals occupied while the real
conservatives are off doing their dastardly deeds. In the words of
that great philosopher Daffy Duck, “it’s dessspicable”.
Our forefathers worked hard?Ahhh yes! You must mean, the folks who
were captured in Africa, taken across the sea, and worked in the fields all day
without any pay! Ah I would definitely agree with you.
"Doing so will free up existing wealth to create new jobs, new small
businesses and thus create wealth at all levels of society and enable the poor
to raise their condition."You must have missed the Bush
Administration. We lowered taxes. So where are the jobs?Furthermore,
why would "job creators" create jobs when most of us don't have the
wealth anymore to buy their products and services?We're already
thousands of dollars in credit card and student loan debt just trying to make
ends meet.We need to build America up from the bottom up. That way,
folks will have the wealth enough to buy products and services thus causing the
"job creators" a reason to create jobs.
Keith, it's not government vs. the people, it's government by the
people. Please join us.
When 1% owns 80% of everything, they should pay 80% of the taxes.When a rich man builds his roads, builds his own infra-structure [water,
sewr, power], has his own police force, has his own Fire &
Ambulance, educates his own workforce, finds his own medical
cures,and builds and maintains his own standing army, THEN and only
then can cry about how unfair the redistibution of wealth is.A
little history lesson, Read up on the French Revolution if you really
believe the rich will take it upon themselves to do the right things for
Excellent letter. People have to be continually reminded that government does
not create wealth they get it from taxpayers. All of your critics want to argue
that you do not want any taxes or any government. We want and need good
government and reasonable taxes. We do not want big government and high taxes.
TwinLights -- your comment was excellent. Thank you.
J. Thompson, the Supreme Court and I disagree with your interpretation of the
16th amendment. I invite all who agree with you to continue exercising your
freedom to persuade the rest of us to change our minds. Until then the
redistribution of wealth is both legal and constitutional.
re: Blue & LDS LiberalMitt & his kind are all in favor of
*redistribution*. *Socialism* for the 1% is par for the course. They
feel *entitled* to compensation from Joe Average via DC when one of their ill
conceived 21st century lower Manhattan equivalent of 3 card monte fails.
@BRM -- I've asked this question before, but no conservative will ever
answer it: How much is a "reasonable tax"? Conservatives think they
are paying too much now. How much do you think you should pay? Tax rates are
at an all time low (that's why so many do not pay taxes -- the tax rates
have been reduced and reduced until there are many that fall below the line
where taxes are paid). How low do they need to go before you will be happy? Or
will you complain no matter what the rates are? That's why people say
conservatives don't want to pay taxes and want something for nothing
(government services for paying no taxes). Because if you complain at this
point in history when taxes are so relatively low, when will you ever be
satisfied? It truly seems like you don't want to pay any taxes at all, but
you sure do want your benefits.
Look,Truths - Not Left, Not Right, Just truths-Taxes,
both individual and corporate (effective) are at historical lows-Spending
is too high-Deficits are too high-current and projected entitlement
spending is unsustainable-A budget with all spending cuts and entitlement
reform with no tax increases will NEVER PASS in congress-A budget with all
tax increased and small spending cuts or minor entitlement reform will NEVER
PASS in congress-what we are doing today is a path to ruin.So,
you have 2 choices.Tell you congressmen to hold out for everything
you want or vote NOTell your congressmen to get as much as they can but do
better than what we have today.Disagree with me? Fine. Refute my
"truths" with facts and provide a better (realistic) choice.Realistic = budget with broad bipartisan support
Keith and supporters claim government doesn't create wealth. If they are
right, then neither do business owners, their managerial staff and service
contractors. Only their laborers do.
Another shallow, simplistic conservative argument for a fantasy world that would
be an absolute hell to live in."It would give hope and re-enable
a path to the American dream."Many people, including this letter
writer, worship the holy America Dream without understanding what it even is.
Guess what? It is not a mansion, a million dollars, and 10 milligrams of Ambien
before bedtime. Here's the dictionary definition: "An American social
ideal that stresses egalitarianism and esp. material prosperity." Yes,
equality. When we can figure out a way to correct our corporation-dominated
system so that it produces both equality and prosperity, then we may have a
chance at achieving the American Dream.Making the tired old claim
that government is the problem is both false and duplicitous.
Our government's constitutional responsibility is to "...promote the
general welfare...." not assure. Finding the correct role for government is
determined by political philosophy. The socialists/communists (do everything)
and libertarians/anarchists (do nothing) are at the extremes and seem to have
captured the two major parties. Neither presidential candidate reassures me.
As history recalls -- Adolph Hitler ran his rise to power based on
the cries of inefficient Government and the evil liberal Weimar Republic.He promised to make every facet of German society ultra-efficient, lean,
running like clock work. He eliminated waste in Government and Society. You either produced to Society, or you were eliminated from Society -- Nobody
got a Free lunch.Auschwitz was an example of even turning mass human
genocide and extermination as efficient as modern factory.Remember
the old adage: Hey, at least he made the trains run on time.
Where are the jobs? We've seen lower taxes for almost 12 years.
So where are the jobs?
When 1% owns 80% of everything, they should pay 80% of the taxes.When a rich man builds his roads,builds his own infra-structure [water,
sewr, power],has his own police force,has his own Fire &
Ambulance,educates his own workforce,finds his own medical cures,and builds and maintains his own standing army,THEN and only then can
cry about how unfair the redistibution of wealth is. But the
taxpayers including the 1% are the ones who paid to build all the
infra-structure and pay for all the services that non tax payers get to enjoy
and use. What a class warfare statement to say the non tax payers paid for all
this.The CBO reported the top 1 percent earns 13.4 percent of all
pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009. But because they have
accumulated wealth you demand they pay more tax. In other words if I put money
in a savings account you expect me to pay more taxes. You want to rob me of my
savings. At what level of savings will you leave my savings alone.
Re: "Tax rates are at an all time low"Ha!Taxes
have never been higher -- but they're headed there.Before 1913,
there were no federal direct taxes. That is not to say no taxes, but they were
hidden away in the cost of goods and services. Back then, taxation for most
Americans is estimated to have averaged 3-6%.Then
"progressives" took power, and taxes exploded.Today, about
50% of middle class American incomes are filched in taxes.Visible
taxes include -- state/federal/local income and social program taxes, real and
personal property taxes, sales and use taxes [including gas and other
transportation taxes and fees], and several excise taxes. Many are compound --
taxing previously taxed income.But, in addition to those, there are
hundreds more. Most are hidden and compounding in the cost of goods and
services. These include import duties, "corporate" income and
transaction taxes [a misnomer; corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do],
debt service/interest, and most insidious of all -- the Fed's inflationary
thievery.Talk about grievous to be borne!
No As history recalls -- Adolph Hitler ran on the promise of equality for
all.Points from the "Program of the National Socialist German
Workers' Party""We demand that the State shall above all
undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living
decently and earning a livelihood. All citizens must possess equal rights
and duties.That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise
from work, be abolished.We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound
middle-class, The enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without
compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground
rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.The State has the
duty to help raise the standard of national health by …increasing physical
fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the
greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical
education of the young.COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD."
Re: "Remember the old adage: Hey, at least he made the trains run on
time."Uh, that was Mussolini.But, set that aside for
a minute -- I'm not following the argument. Why castigate a fellow
socialist for the same principles liberals currently advocate? The "no free
lunch" argument is the one the regime used to promote Obamacare's
mandatory lock step. And its historically improbable government efficiencies
were supposed to offset the thievery of Medicare funds.But, to an
even more basic issue -- are liberals now insisting government SHOULD be
inefficient? Or, that if Obama could ever get trains to run on-time, everything
else he's done to destroy America must be forgiven?Hmmmmm.
To "The Real Maverick" if you want to look at the recent history of jobs
in the US, prior to your Democrats taking control we had around 5% unemployment.
Since then it has crept up to over 8%, or higher if you look at the number of
people who simply gave up. The jobs dried up during the Democrats watch, so why
should we keep them around since they killed the employment rates?To
"LDS Liberal" history also recalls that Hitler used extensive social
welfare programs, such as old age pensions, they promised free education, free
healthcare, mandated profit sharing in business, all was to be carried out
through the central government. They had an extensive welfare system that was
used in propaganda by Hitler.
Banks, Wall Street and big business are even more inefficient than government.
They are fueled by greed. Government didn't cause the financial collapse.
So how do you organize a community without government? If you get two people
together and develop some type of cooperative arrangement, don't you have a
"government" with a governing set of rules?Anarchy
isn't a viable option. The Old West see any civilizing force until
"law and order" came to town and government was established to serve the
interests of the community. However, to say that "government is
inefficient" is an oxymoron. Any system has its inefficiencies just like
any machine has its inefficiencies. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
It is only transformed.Usually it is not "government" that
is inefficient; it is the people who make up "government" who are
inefficient. Politicians learn how to take advantage of the inefficiencies for
their personal benefit. Why else do they become politicians? The revolving
door between higher office and lucrative private-sector jobs is revealing.Change within government is affected by inertia and the self-interest of
those who serve and those who they depend upon for their election. Call it
"inefficient" but recognize it for what it is.
Mountanman Hayden, ID"Obama is responsible for everything bad
in the world!"Is this a correct summary of your views?
@ Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena"Obama is responsible
for everything bad in the world!"Is this a correct summary of your
views?I would put it this way--there is "more truth than
poetry" in that statement. There certainly no question but that Mr. Obama
is EXTREMELY liberal. I have asked this question of you liberals a number
of times and have never gotten an answer:If conservatives are the
"dunderheads" you claim, why does Utah, which is governed mostly by
conservatives year after year, consistently have a very healthy economy and low
unemployment? As they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
For the nation as a whole, we have conservatives in power, then liberals, then
an even mix, etc., so it is hard to tell which does what and who is really doing
a good job. However, when a state consistently has one or the other, such as
Utah, you can get a much better indication of who is responsible for success or