I'm certainly glad that we have income inequality in the United States. You might say that I like it because income inequality works in my favor. That's a true statement. Those people that make below average wages are all for the concept of everyone making the same wage. Would these people be better off if the income inequality was eliminated though? How would things work if all jobs paid the same?
What would be the incentive to work in particularly difficult, dirty, or dangerous jobs? Would everyone just pick a fun, easy job? I don't believe everyone would take the easiest road, because some folks just enjoy a challenge, but a lot of people would take their "dream" job. If you make the same money in all jobs, who would start all the businesses? Today, entrepreneurs take a lot of risk and work very hard in hopes of getting the "pot of gold" at the end of the proverbial rainbow. Why would they take any risk or do any extra work to get the same pay as everyone else?
What happens to the existing businesses out there? Should stock holders make no profit? Obama and the progressive liberal socialist Democrats vilify anyone or any business that makes what they deem as "excessive" profits. When the price of gasoline was rising rapidly early in the Obama reign, politicians were reporting everyday about how Exxon-Mobil was making record profits. Obama has also made statements indicating that our health care costs are too high because the CEO's of insurance companies are paid too much money and because of the corporate profits. You know, I think our taxes are too high because the President and Congress make too much money. (My statement is just as ridiculous as the liberal statements above.) Should I assume that all companies would be not-for-profit in Obama's Marxist utopian economic view? If that were the case, then stockholders shouldn't expect any dividends because there would be no earnings. Without earnings, why would anyone buy a stock? For that matter, why would a company want to invest capital in new equipment or expansion? If no one wants to buy the stock you own, then it is worth $0. Why should the company continue to operate? Maybe the stockholders would just turn the company over to the government bureaucrats. I'm sure everything would be wonderful with the MessAPolitico in charge. It would be just like our government in every aspect of the economy.
If all of the corporations just closed their doors and entrepreneurs quit opening new businesses, where would we all work? Will the government just find jobs in the bowels of the bureaucracy for everyone? Who will pay the salaries? Maybe we should be taxed at 100% of our salaries, and the government could take out the costs of running the government and just pay us back what's left over as a salary. Maybe you noticed that the math doesn't work out there. The MessAPolitico does the math using this exact logic. The dirty little secret is that the bureaucrats love the rich people that they "beat up" on a regular basis. They need rich people around so they can rob them to pay the "benefits" that are doled out to buy votes.
The Senate has passed an extension of long-term unemployment benefits. Harry Reid has been saying that the House should take a vote on this extension. He says it is inexcusable that the House Republicans don't care about the unemployed that need this lifeline. It sure is funny how the Senate has refused to vote on dozens of job creation proposals sent over from the House. Why isn't that inexcusable? Is it more compassionate to help improve the economic environment to facilitate job creation or to provide a handout? Oh, I guess we wouldn't need to pay unemployment benefits if it wasn't for George W. Bush. Please help me elect challengers in the upcoming primaries. We don't need new leaders in Washington; we just need leaders, period.
No comments:
Post a Comment