The founding fathers of the now defunct United States of America were quite astute political philosophers. They believed that civil government primarily existed to protect three fundamental civil rights that all citizens of the land had by virtue of being created in the image of the God of the Bible. Those three civil rights were the right to life, the right to freedom and the right to own property and use it as one sees fit. The founding documents of that now dead country were crafted in a vain attempt to accomplish the goal of protecting those rights. The antiquated idea that a citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika should be free to live his life and enjoy his property as he sees fit sound quaint and downright non-progressive to the ears of today's socialist.
According to this article at National Review, "A question on an exam for a course at the Milwaukee School of Engineering declared 'income redistribution' to be among 'the main functions of government.' The declaration was part of a question on an exam given on April 29 in in Professor John Traxler’s Healthcare Economics class, a copy of which was obtained by Campus Reform. It read, in full: One of the main functions of government is income redistribution. This means:
A. Regulating businesses so they pay their fair share of taxes
B. Taxes (as a percent of income) are higher for the wealthy
C. Taxing the wealthy and giving it to those in poverty
D. Taxes (as a percent of income) are higher for those in poverty"
Let's consider the question and answers for a bit today.
Let's consider the question and answers for a bit today.
The question is a simple one....what is income redistribution? The correct answer is C. Income redistribution is when civil government takes money earned by people who make more than others and gives it to people who earn less than others. Why one group earns more and another earns less is not considered. Why income should be redistributed is not described. The answer simply states that income redistribution is "taxing the wealthy," whoever they are, and "giving it to those in poverty," whoever they are and regardless of why or how they find themselves in that condition. What is astounding is the sentence that comes prior to the question on the test. I will reserve that topic for last and first consider the other possible answers given in response to the question.
Answer "A" is nonsense. It confuses government regulation with government taxation. Regulations do not tax a business, tax law taxes a business. Mind you, this is a question from a college exam in an engineering class, where the students are ostensibly fairly intelligent and the professor is usually deemed to be even more intelligent. Businesses are regulated by civil government in the SDA because career politicians and the citizens who elect them believe businessmen are immoral and career politicians are saints. Why are politicians not regulated? Answer: because they never do anything wrong. Why are businesses regulated? Answer: Because they are greedy monsters out to rip off the public. Sadly, most people believe this tripe.
The tired old refrain about businesses paying their "fair share of taxes" is also dragged into the discussion. What in the world does that mean? As I argued in a blog post a couple of weeks ago, businesses should not be subject to taxation at all. What is the fair share of government revenue profit seeking businesses should be responsible to pay? Answer: None. All revenues should be derived from income taxes on all the citizens of land. Go back and read my prior post if you want to understand why.
Answers "B" and "D" are two sides of the same coin. Neither answer is correct for the question asked and only one of the two answers can be true. Which one is it? Who pays more in taxes, as a percentage of income, in this envy-filled land? This graph will answer the question and will no doubt shock you if you have been living on a steady diet of Bernieisms:
The average citizen of the SDA pays right at 10% of his income in federal income taxes. In addition to paying more overall income taxes (the members of the top 49% of the income population pay almost all federal income taxes), the people with the highest incomes also pay the highest percentages of their income in taxes. Please explain to me how that can be described as "fair" without assuming that the poor have a moral claim on the income of those who make more than them or that all personal income ultimately belongs to the government.
If the only way you can answer my last question is by assuming that the poor, however they are defined, have a moral claim on the money of the rich, also undefined, please explain the ethical or moral system you are using that allows you to come to that conclusion. If the only way you can answer my last question is by assuming that all personal income belongs to the civil government please explain the ethical and moral system you are using that allows you to come to that conclusion. I predict that if you hold to either of those two preposterous presuppositions you will find yourself incapable of explaining the moral basis for them. Your belief in them is a religious belief based upon your faith in the god of government.
All of this brings me to my main point. According to a professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, and perhaps according to the entire professional staff at the school, "income redistribution is one of the main functions of government." In making this assertion the professor finds himself in the company of Bernie and his legions of socialist followers. I hasten to point out that the USA was founded by men who wrote founding documents which asserted precisely the opposite of what most people believe today. According to the old dead guys who founded what has now become the SDA, income redistribution was an act of theft that no civil government should ever engage in. Indeed, almost to a man they described how they self consciously crafted the governing documents of this land in what is now a failed attempt to keep the property of the minority safe from the depredations of the majority. My how things have changed.
Nobody, except the Mad Welshman and the editors of the National Review, ever stops to question the fundamental belief that civil government exists to take income from one group and give it to another. Every single citizen of this land that I have ever queried has told me that he believes theft to be immoral. Ever single person I have ever met believes that it is wrong for one man to take a gun and take the money or property of another man by force. Everyone is in universal agreement that such actions constitute theft. That is, at least, until we discuss civil government. Then, for purely selfish and religious reasons, the argument suddenly changes.
The religious worship that is reserved for civil government and the career politicians who operate it in this land is the reason why theft by majority vote is considered to be a good thing when all other forms of personal theft are condemned as evil. The pronouncements of those who rule over us are morally perfect, by definition, because they are gods who can do no wrong. It also helps that those who make the most money are a minority group that is easy to fleece because they have no political power under the terms of Bernie's democratic socialism. Democratic socialism simply means the majority has the moral right to steal from the minority. Oh, to be sure, the theft is gussied up with phrases like the "greater good" and the "needs of the oppressed" and other such claptrap but in the end it all boils down to using the coercive power of government to steal from a group that cannot protect itself. It is not right but it is true...the primary function of government in the SDA is to steal from the productive rich and give to the unproductive deadbeats who elect career politicians to do their dirty work for them.