Income inequality, a term I hear a lot about these days. The ones talking about it the most are the ones that have money, the politicians. They hope to stir up the " poor " people in an attempt to gain their votes. Now these politicians aren't advocating sharing their money, no, no, no. they are advocating sharing your money! And how do they propose to do that? By making you give more of your money to the government. In that way those same politicians can secure a larger part of the pie for themselves while fulfilling a promise. You get more " free stuff " and they get more income. It's a win-win.
What are we really talking about though, with this income inequality? Really we are talking about disposable income. Yes, the amount of money we can just throw away, it's disposable! We Americans, as a general rule, have enough money for the essentials but we don't have enough to throw away and that needs to change! Some are saying Socialism will fix that! Yes, if we all put our money into one big pot everyone gets more. Well because the government will surely distribute it equally among the citizens, non-citizens, and anyone else that is in the country! Everyone is equal! That's what socialism does. The inequality problem is solved, everyone has the same amount of disposable income, everyone is happy. No more of the neighbor can buy a luxury car but I have to buy a compact. No more people eating in those fancy restaurants while I have to eat hamburgers. And those people with designer clothes, ha, we will all wear the same thing, that's socialism! That's equality.
If you don't have to pay for it, it's free. Isn't that the thinking? Now if I don't receive the money in the first place, because it has been deducted from my wages, I don't have that money to spend. If I don't have the money to spend, but receive a service from the government, that took that money in the first place, the service is free! That's what some folks seem to believe and what the politicians are trying to convince you of. Of course if the government takes your money before you can spend it, that does limit the amount of disposable income you will have. But, we are all equal in income right? No government has ever provided all essential goods and services to every citizen! That's a simple fact. You may get " free " healthcare, education, and housing assistance. Maybe you receive some financial help from the government, basically other peoples money, and today in America you can even get a " free " cell phone. But still, there will be inequities! You know why? Because people will always want what the neighbors have. And that is what we are talking about with income inequality. We are not talking about essentials no matter how much the politicians would have you believe that.
Really it is just common sense. Yes there are poor people and there are rich people. Always have been and always will be. It doesn't matter if the rich folks are ordinary citizens or politicians, there will still be the haves and the have nots. Now if the government were to provide everyone with every essential product or service, all in equal amounts, including disposable income, who is going to work? That's what I want to know. Where is the incentive for me to go to work, to prosper, to succeed? I can just set home, get everything for free and have the same amount of disposable income as everyone else. After all, if you have more money to spend on the things you want than I do, you're rich. That's how we measure that isn't it? Wealth is measured by how much can you throw away.
Looking at the whole consider this; in America we spend an average of 3.2 billion dollars a year on wrapping paper! That's 3.2 billion dollars thrown in the trash every year. The average American will spend 700 dollars on Christmas gifts, things to give away. Between Thanksgiving and New Years Americans will generate about one million tons of trash, to be thrown away. So when I hear about income inequality I think about all of that. What I hear is the politicians and others would have us believe that the rich should give more of their disposable income to the government so the government, in turn, can give it to the people. Of course there will be an administrative fee for all of that. Costs a lot of money to run a charitable organization you know. On average charities take 15% for administrative costs, 10% for additional fundraising expenses and 75% go to the actual cause. Keep in mind the government does oversee charities in the United States and government finds those numbers acceptable. How much would the government decide is acceptable to itself? The IRS currently employs 74,454 full time employees just to collect your taxes! How much overhead is that? How much more will be required if the government were to expand in the distribution of monies? You would have to have an army of people to oversee that, wouldn't you? That's socialism.
Having said all of that I think I can condense it a bit. It is the old concept of separate but equal. The government will be separate from the people. The government is not of the people, by the people anymore. The government is just funded by the people, the government will tell you how to spend it. On the upside, everyone is equal. Whether they are equally happy or miserable isn't the concern here, just so long as we are equal. No inequality exists. Utopia. We can all buy the stuff we want, well maybe.
What are we really talking about though, with this income inequality? Really we are talking about disposable income. Yes, the amount of money we can just throw away, it's disposable! We Americans, as a general rule, have enough money for the essentials but we don't have enough to throw away and that needs to change! Some are saying Socialism will fix that! Yes, if we all put our money into one big pot everyone gets more. Well because the government will surely distribute it equally among the citizens, non-citizens, and anyone else that is in the country! Everyone is equal! That's what socialism does. The inequality problem is solved, everyone has the same amount of disposable income, everyone is happy. No more of the neighbor can buy a luxury car but I have to buy a compact. No more people eating in those fancy restaurants while I have to eat hamburgers. And those people with designer clothes, ha, we will all wear the same thing, that's socialism! That's equality.
If you don't have to pay for it, it's free. Isn't that the thinking? Now if I don't receive the money in the first place, because it has been deducted from my wages, I don't have that money to spend. If I don't have the money to spend, but receive a service from the government, that took that money in the first place, the service is free! That's what some folks seem to believe and what the politicians are trying to convince you of. Of course if the government takes your money before you can spend it, that does limit the amount of disposable income you will have. But, we are all equal in income right? No government has ever provided all essential goods and services to every citizen! That's a simple fact. You may get " free " healthcare, education, and housing assistance. Maybe you receive some financial help from the government, basically other peoples money, and today in America you can even get a " free " cell phone. But still, there will be inequities! You know why? Because people will always want what the neighbors have. And that is what we are talking about with income inequality. We are not talking about essentials no matter how much the politicians would have you believe that.
Really it is just common sense. Yes there are poor people and there are rich people. Always have been and always will be. It doesn't matter if the rich folks are ordinary citizens or politicians, there will still be the haves and the have nots. Now if the government were to provide everyone with every essential product or service, all in equal amounts, including disposable income, who is going to work? That's what I want to know. Where is the incentive for me to go to work, to prosper, to succeed? I can just set home, get everything for free and have the same amount of disposable income as everyone else. After all, if you have more money to spend on the things you want than I do, you're rich. That's how we measure that isn't it? Wealth is measured by how much can you throw away.
Looking at the whole consider this; in America we spend an average of 3.2 billion dollars a year on wrapping paper! That's 3.2 billion dollars thrown in the trash every year. The average American will spend 700 dollars on Christmas gifts, things to give away. Between Thanksgiving and New Years Americans will generate about one million tons of trash, to be thrown away. So when I hear about income inequality I think about all of that. What I hear is the politicians and others would have us believe that the rich should give more of their disposable income to the government so the government, in turn, can give it to the people. Of course there will be an administrative fee for all of that. Costs a lot of money to run a charitable organization you know. On average charities take 15% for administrative costs, 10% for additional fundraising expenses and 75% go to the actual cause. Keep in mind the government does oversee charities in the United States and government finds those numbers acceptable. How much would the government decide is acceptable to itself? The IRS currently employs 74,454 full time employees just to collect your taxes! How much overhead is that? How much more will be required if the government were to expand in the distribution of monies? You would have to have an army of people to oversee that, wouldn't you? That's socialism.
Having said all of that I think I can condense it a bit. It is the old concept of separate but equal. The government will be separate from the people. The government is not of the people, by the people anymore. The government is just funded by the people, the government will tell you how to spend it. On the upside, everyone is equal. Whether they are equally happy or miserable isn't the concern here, just so long as we are equal. No inequality exists. Utopia. We can all buy the stuff we want, well maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment