Why is it that the solution for every Big Government program that is failing (and they all do sooner-or-later) is to “fix” it, or “reform” it – as Mr. Rafferty suggests by “expanding it”. Indeed, the problem is that they are just not large enough, and by that, he means to tax the wealthy even more.
Invariably, that’s the solution for people trying to solve income inequality through state sanction. Statists will expand the size and scope of government by feeding it with more money and more power, and hope that the outcome will be one that will be equitable to all. It never seems to work that way. So they reform some more.
Unfortunately, if you liberated the income from all the wealthy, it pales in comparison to the wealth stored in the vastly larger middle-class, and for some (obvious) reason, this class ends up paying the lion’s share of the tax burden.
Redistribution enlarges the parasitical class at the expense of the working class. That’s why “reform” really means more power concentrated in the hands of the few – and those that control them.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger
We have all heard the cries that so-called entitlement programs like Social Security need to be cut in order to “save” them from extinction. Now that I am 62 years of age, I have become more interested in the issue of Social Security’s solvency.
CEO’s have gotten involved in the process through the now infamous Fix the Debt campaign initiated and funded by Billionaire Pete Peterson and the parallel campaign started by the Business Roundtable. Both of these campaigns are supported by big business and CEO’s of large corporations with no concern where their retirement funds are going to come from.
View original post 1,111 more words