Americans on “Spreading the Wealth Around”
Pollster Rasmussen conducted a poll asking Americans whether they agree, as Obama does, that “spreading the wealth around is good for everybody.” The results are in: 44% agree with Obama, 42% disagree, and 14% are up for persuasion either way (sometimes it is, sometimes it is not, etc.).
69% of Democrats agree with Obama, against 78% of Republicans nationwide who say they oppose any and all “spreading around” of wealth.
Most fascinating about the poll is the following, it emphasizes something I have been saying for years: “A majority of those who earn less than $40,000 a year agree with Obama about spreading the wealth around, while most of those who earn more than that disagree. Entrepreneurs are strongly opposed while a slight plurality of government employees agree.”
As usual, people vote in their own interest. A large part of those who earn less than $40,000 a year are simply egotistical. They support such plans, because they would like to have a bit more money. Once they earn more, however, they start thinking “hey, this is my money, why should the money I work for suddenly be given to others without my consent?”
To me, the only way to defend the spreading of wealth – meaning taking money from someone without his consent, if he objects he may even be put in jail – is indefensible save for providing basic needs for the poor… unless one believes that one does not truly owns one’s own money, but society as a whole does. When one takes the latter view, it is, of course, perfectly acceptable.
Most who take the second view (to a bigger or larger extent) are remarkably also those who simply do not earn a lot. They do not have a problem with stealing money from those who earn more, because doing so is in their own interest. When one allows the majority to do whatever it wants to, one will always find that the minority is robbed. After all, the majority are not rich. They see the minority has more, they want more, they can kid themselves by arguing that taking from the rich legally is not theft, so they go ahead and do so. The only ones still believing the money is being stolen are the victims.
And they are considered egotistical when they say so.
But the ones truly egotistical aren’t those who say ’stay away from my money.’ Instead, it are the ones who steal from those individuals because they too would like to have more, buy more, spend more. These are the ones who are so selfish that they are even willing to ’steal by law’ in order to fulfill their desires. The others do not want to steal from anyone, they just want to keep what’s theirs. It is one of the major reasons why I believe every liberal democracy should have a system in place that protects the richer against the majority.
The U.S. had that system, by the way. It still has it. It’s just ignored.
‘Executives’ have always been stealing money. They basically dictate down the pipe that someone working as a bank teller gets $10.00 an hour so that they can disproportionately make millions. A person making $40,000.00 a year compared to one making $40,000,000.00, truly has very little i.e. nothing. This is not at all fair. A person making 40K has nothing to begin with though they have been perhaps brain washed to think that they do, that perhaps their life isn’t worth 40 million, that the person making this much is 100 times smarter, works 100 times harder than they do – Well that is a bunch of bull#(**@&!! The guy at the top didn’t do it solo, everyone working for company A, B or C had to contribute, yet the profits have gone to the thief who writes his own check and now the entire country will suffer for it while CEO mattresses are stuffed full of cash in what will be hard times for everyone else.
Maiyeko,
You are forgetting tyhat m ore often than not, expereince and time make a person’s slary increase. For instance, the CEO of state Street bank (Ron Logue) makes millions, but he started out ddoing entry level work. He at some point in his life made the equivalent of what 40K is today. Did he compalin? no, he worked hard and made somthing of himself. Ever heard of the phrase “self made milionaire”, same story there. Is there ever politics and favoritsm, and luck that gets people ahead faster? sure, but that’s life anywhere in the world, not just the “bad old USA and its supressive capitalism” As I have said time and time again here at this site. Don’t make the exception the rule.
Still, executive salaries and pensions can sometimes be ridiculous. I’m not arguing for government intervention and legislation on pay caps. That’s wrong, and it’d have to be something from the bottom (relatively). But, it would be nice if CEOs didn’t get away with ridiculous salaries when their companies started going down the tube, while those below them get laid off left and right even if they are doing a good job.
And Michael: You’re right. You’d fit in well with the Libertarian Party here. Not a bad thing, of course. I do have a few disagreements with what you call “stealing money.” The funds to run government at any level have to come from somewhere. It’s part of the social contract you agree to in order to live in a country.
What you define as “stealing money” is often agreed to in legislation by your representatives, and if not by them, than the majority. The people then have recourse if they think their rep voted in the wrong way: vote them out of office.
The issue of who pays how much is, of course, another matter. I bring this up because you appear to be speaking in broader terms than just the rich.
“To me, the only way to defend the spreading of wealth – meaning taking money from someone without his consent, if he objects he may even be put in jail – is indefensible save for providing basic needs for the poor.”
In general I agree with your post, but I think there are two things that make it complicated for me:
1) What exactly is a “basic need”. I wonder how many people 100 years ago would have said health care or retirement savings were basic needs that government should provide (that’s not to say they aren’t necessarily, I’m just making the point that was it is a basic need is not necessarily well defined). I think a missing piece in this whole discussion about “spreading the wealth” is exactly what our society should consider a basic need. Are poor people in such bad shape that they will not be able to provide for their own basic needs without an additional check from the government (considering all of the other existing programs that already exist)?
2) Almost any tax system is redistribution to some extent (or “stealing money” as you put it). Even in a flat tax system, the rich still disproportionately fund programs that benefit everyone (police, military, etc.). Are you saying that you don’t support any government program that is not a basic need (ie. research funding)? If so, that’s fine. I just wanted to make that clear. But for those who believe there is a role for government beyond basic needs, then some tax policy must exist to fund those programs, which inevitably will be redistribution of wealth to some degree, since some people will benefit from those programs more than others.
Michael Merrit, I agree with you here…
But, it would be nice if CEOs didn’t get away with ridiculous salaries when their companies started going down the tube, while those below them get laid off left and right even if they are doing a good job.
Mike,
I agree there are some grey areas. but the basic question should be “what is need”? We have gone over and above and spread the wealth around to those that really don’t need our help, but put folks in a position where they are stuckwith welfare. Why is it that we don’t create “ladder” programs that help people out of their predicament, (as they earn more, the same proportion is taken away in aid) rather than taking away a huge chunk of benefits the minute the person goes out and looks for a job. We need a more dynamic approach to helping those in need, to get out of need from a financial standpoint (I’m not talking about job placement or training). That financial help system just doesn’t exist, and I think it needs to if we are going to get serious about fixing welfare in this country.
Mike: actually, as a European conservative, I believe that health care is a basic need. In many ways, it’s like food. Don’t get it when you need it, you cannot work, function properly and may eventually die. So, to me that’s a basic need. This means that if citizens cannot receive it in the free market, the government will have to provide it for them. The question then is, however, when they truly cannot in a free market, that’s one, and two: how to make sure they do get it. Do you need a major overhaul of the health care system as it currently exists, or should you just say “those who earn less than this amount of money each year will get health care”?
Or something in between?
So that’s a complicated subject.
Should the government provide more than basic needs? I believe the government should be active in education. Not a complete monopoly, for experience in Europe and elsewhere, has shown that this may not produce the best results in the West, but a very significant role, while leaving room for private schools, choice for parents to what schools they want to send their children to, and so on.
So the answer to your question is more nuanced than you expected, I think.
As for taxes: sure, we have to pay taxes. A government cannot exist without it. However, the point should be the same percentage. Do the rich than pay more in absolute terms? Of course, but those with common sense will likely quickly agree that it’s not about absolute numbers, but relative numbers, which are best expressed in percentages.