Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Screwing the Rich Doesn’t Do the Poor Any Favors

I got into a political debate on Facebook yesterday over raising taxes on the rich.

It all started when a friend of mine posted: “If only we had a President that didn’t spark class warfare because less than 1% do what he generalizes they all or the majority of them do. Sorry Mr. President but as John Adams said, ‘Facts are stubborn things.’”

To support his position, he included a link to an AP story, which took issue with President Obama’s claims that secretaries pay higher taxes than their rich bosses.

Not surprisingly, a liberal immediately jumped all over that post, asking, “Why are you defending the rich?” And she later added:

“I support sacrificing the few to the benefit of all. To hell with the wealthiest ten percent. If they were as charitable as you imagine they wouldn’t be that rich. I don’t understand why some of the nations poorest citizens defend the wealthy. They don’t give a thought to the working poor.”

But her logic is as detrimental as she claims the wealthy to be.

For instance, while sacrificing the few for the many might be the right course of action sometimes, it isn’t always justified. And in this case, specifically, it just doesn’t work.

Just look at recent census figures, which show that – despite Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty beginning in 1964 – the 2010 poverty rate was the worse it has been since at least the 1950s. And that despite massive amounts of additional government spending, which has to be eventually paid for by taxpayers and the so-called rich.

(It’s also much easier to demand sacrificial lambs when you know you won’t be one.)

After wishing the rich in hell, our angry liberal above makes two claims that a) they can’t be very charitable since they’re still rich and b) they don’t ever think about the poor.

I’d first of all like to know how she knows every single rich person (if any at all) to make such gross generalizations. But even if she did, she’d still be wrong, since the wealthy give plenty to charities, which wouldn’t be able to run or run as well without their help.

Take the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the $37 million Warren Buffett donated to charities in 2006 alone; and the fact that Oprah Winfrey, Barbra Streisand, Michael Jordan and Rush Limbaugh all made 2008’s Top 10 most generous celebrities list.

Those people are all loaded… and they donate millions each every year towards helping their fellow man. But even if they didn’t, this is the bottom line: They received their money through legal means, so we have no legal right to demand they fork it over.

2 comments: