Tax the Rich, Patient Grasshopper

by the Left Coast Rebel

I came across the video above whilst on the hunt for another video that I saw last night - a guest on Cavuto on Fox arguing for more excessive taxation on the rich 'to better society'. This Mr. Steve Dore, (above), is a huge Ron Paul fan and an advocate for liberty. His song speaks for itself. As I have said before, sometimes humor is the best antidote for troubled times. Check out his site here.
Back to the intention of this post, spoof aside - the Cavuto show guest, a Mr. Eric Schoenberg, a professor at Columbia, (of course) He is also part of an advocacy group of wealthy folks for taxing the rich even more. The Orwellian sounding Wealth for the Common Good is their name.







I know you as a loyal reader of my blog may be thinking, 'come on LCR, this isn't health care or the Beer Summit, get back to the news of the day', don't digress, keep hitting the same topics!'



I understand, I really do, but patience grasshopper, watch the video, absorb the professor's points, his philosophy, his logic. Check back with me down below for my analysis. To combat leftism, altruism at a gunpoint, socialism, fascism and the shredding of the Constitution and individual rights we must know thy enemy. Again, patience grasshopper.






Pointy-headed educated fool points, (italicized), with my take in bold , what do you think? -

• "Well you know I can’t speak for everybody but it’s people who realize how fortunate we are in our society and really love this country and what it’s done for us and our families and want to give back.”


• This one is telling folks, a seemingly simply benign statement unless you explore the premise behind - isn't it interesting when the Left argues for excessive taxation in terms like 'wanting to give back'? What if they were truly honest? That their belief system is centered to enable an all-powerful state, obliterate our Constitution? To love your country is to believe in Socialism. Guilt of success enables many evils.


• "Part of what my research is about is the psychology of money.....one of the most important findings that I look at is that it is all relative, (the amount of money an individual earns, 250k vs 2 million), there's research that suggest that relatively low levels of income, earning additional income doesn't make people happier."




• Interesting premise. I can go a bit further and tell you dear reader that he thinks, as does the Left in the body politic; that income past a certain point is unnecessary, selfish, doesn't make one happy. What an amazing way to lay the groundwork for wealth confiscation. It should matter not if an individual's wealth makes him happier on a sliding scale, what matters is that it is his property. Property that you as an individual have rights over. Property that is the fruit of your labor, your time, your life. It doesn't take an egghead genius to figure this out. Academia produces and promotes the most illiterate amongst us - simple lack of common-sense is the most dangerous illiteracy. Illiterate egghead Ivy-League Ninnyisms.




• Cavuto asks what the 'acceptable progressive tax level is' - "Well there are two separate issues there, one is kind of a moral issue, the second is a practical issue, at what point do we start impinging upon the incentive to work hard?" Cavuto - "Is it over 50%?" Professor - " "On the moral issue everybody has their opinion, on the practical issue, I suspect that it is a lot higher than people suspect. Most people that earn that kind of money are not doing it for the money itself. "



• Interesting again, fascinating how blatantly illogical and conflicted this man's opinions are. Apparently he thinks that anyone that produces or makes wealth is engaged in some sort of Monopoly game where funny money is the reward. At a certain point of wealth creation the money becomes meaningless. Time for the State-vulture gluttons to come swooping in. The Left always uses ambiguous and subjective reasoning to argue their goal. Who is to say that BO's 250k threshold today is not half that tomorrow? Half that half?


• (On the mysterious 'right to health care', his justification of socialized med ) - " I view this as enlightened self-interest, I have two daughters and care a great deal about the society that they are going to grow up in."


• The whole enchilada folks. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand has miraculously turned into big-government enabling 'enlightened self interest'. There is certainly nothing enlightened in propagating forced taxation at ever-increasing stratospheric levels. There is nothing enlightened in an ethos of forcing others at gunpoint to pay for a Federal Leviathon, a monster that will never have a satiated appetite. Their is nothing self-interested in a central government planning and controlling all aspects of our lives; nothing enlightened in the jettisoning of our Founder's promise of individual protections.

This ethos, this philosophy is that of Marx and Hegel, of Lenin and Stalin, of Mao, of Mussolini. The ethos that a central government is the mighty arbiter, the leveler, the enabler. It is a religion and a disease, this belief. It is the antithesis of what our Founders envisioned. It is a crying shame that many amongst us gravitate to such evil. It is preposterous that Ivory Tower Academia is the breeding grounds for slavery.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged