Taxing the Rich to Help the Poor

Is it Moral?

Is it right for a society to tax the rich and give to the poor? I think not. Why, because if a society tax from the rich and give it to the poor it is like stealing money? Think about it, if a robber goes to a bank and steal money of course it is wrong and the robber will go to jail if he gets caught. Instead being a bank robber he votes for a politician that will tax the rich so he can get money for free, is that wrong also? The second example is the easiest to do because every two to four years the entitlement class could just vote for a politician that will give them money and benefits. This cycle keeps going on and on until the rich starts moving away or stop working. Then the entitlement class will suffer because less rich people will be around to feed their unproductive lives. This is why I'm not too fond of taxes and giving it to the poor. As governments raise taxes then people will not invest/spend as much and sometimes leave all together to a different state or country.

Fair Share

Is the rich really paying their fair share?

How much is the rich paying? The list below will help to illustrate.

The top 1% pays 38.02% of the total income tax shares

The top 5% pays 58.72% of the total income tax shares

The top 10% pays 69.94% of the total income tax shares

The top 25% pays 86.34% of the total income tax shares

The top 50% pays 97.30% of the total income tax shares

This is shocking the bottom 50% pays only 2.70% of taxes

Now of course the rich will always ending up paying more but I can't stand it when people whine that the rich isn't paying their fair share. According to the Tax Foundation that uses IRS data the rich is paying well above their fair share.

Pre-1930s

Some groups of people say we need to tax the rich so that we can help the poor and elderly. Forcing groups of individuals to help the poor and elderly is not really helping because the poor will not be productive in society because why would they want to work if they can sit in front of the TV all day and eat chips and receive money for being poor. The only people that deserve to live that way are the ones who made it from poverty to wealth. I'm not saying people don't have the right not to be productive but don't do it on the backs of the rich. Before the the whole government welfare came about in the 1930s, their were groups that were private welfare programs and private unemployment insurance. The poor of our nation use to rely on private welfare programs, private unemployment insurance, churches, and many other organizations.

Ripple Effect

Another thing about taxing the rich. Has anybody in this nation have been hired by a poor person? No, the poor are employed by richer people. Those richer people are hired by the rich (millionaires and billionaires). The more billionaires there are the more millionaires there are and the richer the nation becomes. Billionaires invest their money into companies that are controlled by millionaires which employs the middle class. Some people of the middle class will start businesses that will hire the lower class, like local restaurant owners, gas station owners and many other small businesses. I my self am part of the lower class of society and I do lawn care for people. They of course have enough money left over to be able to pay for my services. If we tax those who have money then I'm out of lawn service jobs or a reduced number of them.

Could Government take that money and just give it to the needy of society and still have a thriving economy? No, why would the rich do work at all if they are being taxed too much. The rich are rich so they could use their resources to live off of for the rest of their lives. The lower class will also be unproductive because why would a lower class citizen work if they can get stuff for free.

Note that I'm not saying all people of the lower class are unproductive but when people are giving the option of either working hard or vote to not to work hard then typically people will do the simple voting for a candidate that will give them stuff. Also I'm not saying that all the people who receives benefits from government aren't all the entitlement class. Entitlement class consist of people who don't want to work hard but want to live a good life on the backs of the rich.

Summary

Taxing the rich to give to the lower class, the poor and needy isn't going to solve the problem. What will solve the problem is unleashing the private sector to create companies with little government interference so that the lower class and poor will work productively and the truly needy will be helped by churches and non-profit organizations.

References:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff249.pdf (table 6)

http://www.jasonlewisshow.com/main.html

Fire Department

Why should the Fire Department be privatized? For one thing it would reduce the liability of the city. If I was mayor of city X, I would go about privatization of the fire department in such a way that the fire-fighters would have some kind of ownership in the Fire Department Company. The fire department company would be on its own without support from the city.

Now how would the Fire Department make money, they would charge a monthly fee for each property to protect from fires. Say there is a fire at your property the Fire Department would go out and do what the fire department typically dose take out the fires of the property. The Fire Department can charge a fee of $5 per square feet per year. For simplistic sake lets say you have a property of 1,000 square feet. That would be $5,000 a year/12 months which equal about $417 a month. This of course is a very simplistic, in real life it may be a lot lower than $5 per square feet. This would apply to the property owners. Now if somebody doesn't want to take the fire department insurance then they will run the risk of losing all the property they own if it caught on fire.

What about apartment complexes? The property owner would have some liability if there is a fire in an apartment. The apartment complex can say to the people who live there do you want your property to be protected? The vast majority would say yes and they would be gladly take the higher rent if that meant if there is a fire then there would be less damage if they don't.

What if you don't have fire department insurance but still want the fire department to come out and take out the fire? You can but if you are willing to pay a big fee because they don't know what the fire department company is getting into.

Could there be two different fire departments in one city? Well, yes, each fire department would be a company and if somebody doesn't want have fire department x but they want fire department y then they can either create one or convince a entrepreneur to get into the business of fire departments. Then there would be competition among x and y. The consumer wins! Because they will be competing for you and they want to have a high quality service with the lowest possible price.

Yes, a Fire Department can and should be formed into a private company and that the market is to open to anybody that wants to go into the fire department business.

Marriage

Lets have a little history lesson on government roll of marriage. Alabama had a law that basically said interracial marriages was illegal. In 1883 Supreme Court basically said that the Alabama law was unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment. This was a victory and a curse because it allowed government to have a say in marriage. I think it would of been best if government made no laws on social issues particularly marriage and let the people decide how they should live there lives. In Minnesota there is amendment about to be voted on in next election that would allow Minnesota to decide whether or not to have marriage between one man and one woman. There is all ready a law that makes one man and one woman marriage the only marriage. The reason why there is an amendment vote on this issue is because people don't want to have judge rule against it. So, it makes it harder for the Judicial system in Minnesota to make the law illegal. I do agree with principle that marriage should be between one man and one woman but should I regulate my morals on other people? What if thirty years or so from now the majority of people has a different sets of morals that is against my morals and they want to regulate my life because their morals say they have the right to regulate me. I think not. I think that marriage should be left out of the government completely. I don't want to see churches being forced to accept homosexual marriages but I don't want to see the church regulating marriage through government force. A church has the right to accept or reject a particular marriage, for what ever reason. I will stand with any church that will reject unbiblical marriages whether thats homosexual or a non-Christian marrying a Christian but I do draw the line when it comes down to government to decide. Whether or not you believe that marriage should be open or close the government should be out of marriage completely.