Why -- The Rich – The Poor

It seems that everyday we are regaled by some well meaning liberal about the evils of the rich, the unfairness of wealth, the unfairness of poverty, and demands that the government do something to eliminate poverty.  What seems to be lacking is any question regarding the poor and how they got to be poor.  Certainly there are the “haves” and the “have not’s” in America but to classify these as those who have and those who don’t is a mistake.  The proper classifications are those that work and those that don’t, those that do and those that don’t.   We have those who obey the law, who support themselves and their families, and those who don’t.  The discussion shouldn’t be about income inequality but about personal and civic responsibility.

The political left focus on what they see as “income inequality” because some people make a great deal more than others and that isn’t “fair”.  For them the government should act as referee and level the playing field in effect the government should play Robin Hood and take from the rich and give to the poor, even though the poor have done nothing to earn it.  For the political left people should not be held accountable for their decisions if those decisions leave them in poverty, instead the government should redistribute the wealth more equitably. 

There is an irony here because this is a philosophy that is destroying America but the irony is that rather than helping the poor, it is actually locking them into a life of poverty and dependence on the government.  In effect this effort at redistribution of wealth does not benefit the poor but instead benefits the politicians and their power base.  It is a deviation of the basic value system that built America and simple common sense because it promises a level of material success that in not only not earned but cannot realistically be achieved.

The well meaning liberals have not empowered the poor as intended but have enslaved and trapped them into a life of dependence and entitlement, a life as a victim of society without hope of things ever getting better.  The idea that income equality can be achieved by taking from the successful and giving it to the poor is flawed at the outset.  It penalizes the hardworking successful individual who has made good life decisions while rewarding those who have made poor choices and decisions.  The reality is that each of us leads a life built upon choices and decisions.  When we make good decisions and choices these lead to rewards but when we choose poorly the results lead to failure and disappointment.  Of course through hard work and effort the effects of these poor choices and decisions can be reversed, but when the government steps in and attempts to mitigate the consequences of these bad decisions, dependence, disappointment, and poverty are the result.

It only requires a minimum effort to see that success and failure manifest themselves in family income.  Those who choose to drop out of high school, who have children prematurely and out of wedlock, have a greater possibility of living a life marked by failures, low incomes, and disappointment.  But those who finish high school, finish college, and dedicate themselves to work and self improvement have higher incomes and success.  The fact is that our futures are determined by our choices.

There is no doubt but that there is income inequality.  Income is tied directly to effort with those making the most effort having the highest incomes and those with the least having the lowest.  However, it is the effort and sacrifice that is the determinant not the education.  A bus boy at 16 can – through hard work become a waiter, then perhaps a co-owner of the restaurant, and eventually the owner of multiple restaurants and wealthy.  Another boy at 16 might choose to study and aim for a top university and a medical degree leading to a specialty and a high income.  Both boys become wealthy and successful husbands and fathers whose success was determined by their effort and dedication to a goal.  But another boy goofs off in school, doesn’t continue his education, gets a job as a laborer, has a couple of kids by different women, cannot maintain child support payments, and never seems able to get ahead and becomes dependent on the government. The inequality was in effort which led to negative outcomes and inequality of income.

The question then becomes “does the government have the moral right to take the wealth from the successful and distribute it to the unsuccessful in the form of government handouts?  While those who wish to take care of the poor by taking the wealth from one group and giving it to another may make them think they are doing the right thing, the reality is they are taking away the dignity, motivation, and freedom from those they wish to help.  The inequality of income is tied directly to the inequality of effort.  Government programs designed compensate for this inequality of effort fail because they make no demands on those they wish to help.  In effect they offset the lack of effort by making no attempt to motivate those they wish to help by motivating them to make greater efforts to become independent and self-sufficient. 

There is no easy path to success but there is an easy path to failure.  Everyone has the freedom to succeed just as through decisions and choices they have the freedom to fail.  The stark reality is that the harder you work the greater the rewards and government programs intended to thwart that simple fact, do not work and instead lock those they intend to help into a life of poverty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are The Poor Undeserving?

The common political mantra is “tax the rich” because as everyone knows the ‘rich” are the “lucky” ones --- the “fortunate” few, but no one ever seems to look below these statements to determine how the poor got to be poor and how the rich got to be rich. Yes, it’s true some people inherit their wealth but in reality they are truly a minority and the great majority of the “rich” are not truly rich and have gotten their wealth the hard way – they earned it. Well how about the poor? How did they get to be poor – did they inherit it or did they get it the old fashioned way – they earned it? I submit that the people who are poor --- in general – got to be poor by earning their status through personal decisions just as the rich got to be that way through personal decisions.

The undeserving rich – those lucky and fortunate few – seem to have several things in common. For example – they went to school – all 12 grades and frequently on to college although not always. They paid attention in school and learned to read and write and to speak proper English. They obeyed the rules and did not join a gang, steal a car, skip school, or get arrested multiple times. Of course there are those who see that criteria on how to become poor as racist (as if all poor people were minorities), insensitive, uncaring, greedy, or simply reflecting the inherent evils of capitalism. After all capitalism allows some people to get rich while allowing others to become poor, and this is seen as unfair and the greedy capitalists should be forced to give their ill-gotten gains to the poor, so everyone will be equal. What goes unsaid is that when this wealth redistribution is put into practice the result is making everyone equally poor.

But the real issue is how people get to be poor in the richest country in the world. Well if you examine those unfortunate poor you will discover that it isn’t a question of losing life’s lottery or being unlucky, but rather the result of a whole series of poor decisions. There is a failure to learn a trade or get an education, so they have no work skills and are left with only unskilled or lightly skilled jobs. In fact these people, if they are working at all – tend to just have a series of jobs rather than any kind of career or consistent form of employment. These are the people who when the do work spend what they make so they are never able to dig themselves out of the financial hole. These are the people who spend money on alcohol or drugs without seeing that the money spent on these things could be translated into a savings plan and thus eventually lead them into financial stability.

These are the people who fail to get married but instead elect to live together, which may not be morally acceptable but certainly common enough. The problem is that these informal liaisons yield children, many times multiple children by multiple father’s who may or may not be known or contributing to the welfare of the children. But the real problem is that this is simply another series of decisions that leads inexorably to a life of poverty. Children are expensive to have and each year the cost increases, so the decision to have children that you cannot afford is simply another decision that distinguishes the rich from the poor.

Then of course there is the work ethic. Employers expect their employees to be reliable, punctual, and willing to work. A close examination of these poor people shows that these are not common characteristics in the perpetually poor. Instead these people frequently have many excuses as to why they cannot work. They can’t get to work because of transportation issues, they don’t view punctuality as important, and when they do get to work they do not show a great deal of initiative, loyalty, or interest in the job, which leads to a lack of interest on the part of the employer, who drops the poor employee at the first opportunity. This contributes the cycle of poverty experienced by the individual just as it contributes to the idea that employers are greedy, insensitive, rich people who are exploiting their employees.

Of course the reality is that the employer is simply trying to maintain his business and to generate enough profit to pay himself, his creditors, and his employees. Marginal employees become a burden and drag the entire enterprise down, so it is the benefit of all for the employer to terminate these marginal employees. But it is important to realize that the employer – the undeserving rich person – is not lucky but the product of good decisions and a great deal of hard work. The undeserving poor person is not unlucky but the product of a whole series of bad decisions in association with a lack of motivation and a sense of entitlement. They feel the government or someone should help them and ironically many people – plagued by the guilt of success – agree with them.

There are many people who think that these poor people should share the wealth of the rich and if the rich are not willing to share it voluntarily then it is up to the government to seize their wealth through taxes and to give it to the poor. The reality is that there is no such thing as the undeserving rich just as there is no such thing as the undeserving poor. Both groups are the direct result of their decisions over their lifetime.

Save My Victims

Once again the liberals have raised their voices to accuse those who insist that every one is in a position they created for themselves of being “uncaring” and lacking in compassion. These are the people who wring their hands, shed tears, and demand that some one should do something to help all of these victims. Of course how these victims became victims is never really discussed and certainly their actions prior to their victimization, is never criticized, because that would be cruel. Naturally their demands that someone do something to help these victims never actually includes them, it is always the government – meaning the taxpayer – meaning the undeserving rich, because the poor should never be taxed because they are victims of capitalism and business, not their own poor decisions. The result is everyone is called on to sacrifice and help these victims of earthquakes, floods, drug addiction, AID’s, and whatever problem that can be blamed on “big business”.

The reality is that these victims are almost universally the result of their poor judgement and bad decisions. People flood into California and build homes on every piece of land ignoring the fact that the entire region is subject to devastating fires and earthquakes. But when these disasters strike somehow these liberals feel it is the responsibility of others to pick up the pieces and help these people rebuild – in the same place! Then we have the “poor’ and “homeless” and surely something needs to be done about that. The rich don’t deserve their wealth so we – the liberal elite—should take their wealth and give it to the poor and homeless. The fact that these people are poor and homeless is the direct result of their decision not to get an education, to not develop any skills, to not development any self-discipline, to take drugs, or to foolishly spend what they do have – these are never considered. These are poor people so the liberals think the rich should be robbed of their wealth without regard to the risks they took, the sacrifices they made, or the effort they expended to gain their wealth.

The rich are those people who receive compensation for what they produce. They do not get unearned rewards. No one is forced to buy their products or hire their abilities – this is called a fair exchange – compensation for an exchange of goods or services. This is simple fairness and it is not the responsibility of those participating in this exchange to share anything with others. If they choose to do so, that is called “charity” and is a personal choice and not something that should be forced on them by the government or some well meaning person who thinks something should be done. The happiness or the well being of everyone is their own responsibility and not the responsibility of the government. No one – especially the government – has the right to take by force the wealth of one person and to give it to another simply because that person is poor and unhappy being poor.

Naturally this assessment is viewed as overly harsh, uncaring, unfeeling, and by many as “immoral”. However, this does not mean that the rich should not give to the poor or that they should not share their wealth – quite the contrary – the wealthy can do as they choose with their wealth and many do use their wealth to benefit others. The point is that this sharing should not be foisted on them through legal force in the form of taxation or the use of public funds to alleviate the results of bad judgement. But what about the morality of those who stand around with their hand out and willingly accept the money that has been wrested from the rich through legal force. Is it moral for one to accept the gift of goods that have been taken from another? When this is done by an individual it is called stealing but when it is done by the government it is called “helping the poor” or “welfare” but the result is the same. Why is immoral for a person to want to keep what they have rightfully earned but moral for a person who hasn’t earned it to accept it from the government. What is really at play here is guilt. The liberals are actually plagued with guilt because they have more than someone else – by definition that person with a dollar less is poor in their eyes and the extra dollar they have is rightfully his. This guilt is translated into the continuing pressure to take those extra dollars and give them to the poor but in practice it isn’t their dollars they are giving but the dollars of those whom they feel are too rich. The result is a whole gaggle of people who think it is their “right” to have a job, to get food stamps, to consume more than they earn, and to take without regard for giving of for the source of what they are taking.

What is wasted on these liberals who feel sorry for all of these poor people is that their “love your brother” morality and “rob the rich to give to the poor” panacea’s don’t work and worse they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. This “rob the rich” mentality is displayed daily in calls for the rich to pay their fare share without actually defining who is rich, what their fare share is, and what would be the fair share of the poor – are they free from giving anything back – ever?
We see any effort by those who earn and produce the wealth in this country to protect what they earn as evidence of how big business is destroying the country and something should be done to protect the little guy from the rapaciousness of these rich fat cats.

The fact is that it is these “fat cats” that provide the jobs and generate the wealth for everyone, not those parasites who take and take and take as if it were their right. In fact, the liberals have convinced them that it is their right. If you can just sneak across the border then you are entitled to a job, to welfare, and to medical care at no cost to you because those undeserving rich people can share some of their wealth. The reality is that the liberals have created and perpetuate a society of victims, where no one is responsible for the result of their decisions because they are victims of some one else or some businessman – never their personal decisions. Without victims the left wing would have nothing to do so to exist they must perpetuate this fiction that business is evil and that personal decisions don’t matter.