The underlying thought is that the government can spend rich people's money better than they can. But is that true? Oh and by the way, for the do-gooders who think they are carrying on Robin Hood's job, they have it backwards. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. No, he actually stole the unreasonable taxes collected by the government and returned that money to the hard working folks who paid those exorbitant taxes. It is Republicans who more truly follow in Robin Hoods footsteps, not Democrats.
Now back to who can better spend rich people's money. For example, a lot of people might say that the government would do a better job spending the money of trust fund kids. You know, those filthy rich offspring who got millions and millions simply by having the right daddy. But isn't every parent's dream to provide for their children and give them a better life than they had? Well yes, but still, they don't need that much money, do they? Besides, everyone knows that trust fund babies have a tendency to throw away their money on fancy cars, luxurious homes, expensive wines, lots of jewelry, not to forget roomfuls of clothes and rows and rows of shoes and purses. Simply disgraceful! Unless, of course, you make the clothes or sell the shoes or repair the cars or provide the furniture.
Almost as bad as the trust fund babies are the wives of the filthy rich men. The antics of these housewives are all over TV. If they were the original wife, people might begrudgingly acknowledge their help over the years, be it at the office or raising the children. Trophy wives, though, are worse than trust fund kids for they dislodged the first wife who was there during the hard times and can simply enjoy spending all of their new husband's money. And when they are not on a shopping spree they are at the salon or spa or gym.
Oh right, we're back to spending money on services and goods. All that spending, all that money, fueling the economy, wouldn't you say? And it goes to people who work and who in turn spend their earnings on more goods and services. But the government would give a large part of the wealthy's "fair share" to people who don't work. You know, that take from the rich and give to the poor that Stalin liked so much. Sorry but I prefer that trust fund babies and trophy wives keep their money and spend it however they wish, thank you very much.
Rich men's wives, however, also have a tendency to throw away a lot of money going to fancy dinners and balls given by other rich people. When you or I give a party we might ask a friend to bring a bottle of wine or perhaps a dessert. Rich folks think nothing in spending tens of thousands of dollars for a seat at a dinner party. Oh wait, typically all that money goes to a charity, doesn't it? And then in addition to the ten or twenty-five thousand dollar a plate dinner they then have auctions to raise millions of dollars for a hospital or charity. On a lesser scale are all the golf tournaments, walk-a-thons and other charity events held every weekend for every illness and charity. Take away their money and lots of charities will be underfunded which will negatively affect the research to find a cure for AIDs or breast cancer or cystic fibrosis.
Then there are the rich men, themselves; men who worked hard and provided a new or improved product or service that consumers wanted and paid money for, thereby making the men rich, not to mention his stockholders, investors and even his employees.
These rich guys probably don't spend as much money as their wives or children in buying things as they are too busy working. Yet at that office or factory, these men hire thousands and thousands of people who's salaries in turn buy more products and services. Plus rich guys help other businesses. In a good economy they invest their money not only back into their own company but also into other companies as stocks or bonds or venture capital. Money that again fuels the economy with new businesses meaning new jobs and opportunities for the rest of us.
But you don't hear any of this, do you? No, all Obama says is that the government should take more money from the rich, some hypothetical "fair share" that the Democrats will determine. And when they take that money then the rich will have less to spend on products and services provided by the middle class. All those little boutiques, restaurants, shops, beauty parlors, gyms etc. who employ us middle class and we in turn buy more things with the salaries earned from catering to the rich. But once Obama has this money, well, watch those businesses disappear.
Jobs will disappear when the rich have less money to spend yet, we know how well the government is at creating jobs. They did such a stellar job with the stimulus funds so expect the same failure when they have rich people's money. Just watch as our high unemployment rate jumps even higher if Obama gets his "fair share" tax hike.
And you explain to my niece or any other child with cystic fibrosis why we would raise less money if there's a "fair share" tax. That fewer people would attend our charity events if the wealthy are forced to pay higher taxes. Sorry kids, with less research money, finding a cure to allow CF patients to live past their mid 30s will just take longer now. All because Obama thinks the government deserves to have rich people's money.
So the next time Obama or any Democrat starts to argue about a "fair share" tax tell them that the rich, including Paris Hilton or any of the Housewives from wherever, help our economy and our charities better than the government ever could.
No comments:
Post a Comment