Dakota Beacon

Wealthy people must be punished--presumably for accumulating all that nasty "wealth." At least this is the impression one gets from today's class warfare mongering progressives, who talk of the evils of the "income gap." Free To Choose Network director Max Borders suggests the following approach to kicking off a discussion with an income gap worrier.

Whenever someone laments the “gap” [between highest and lowest earners], ask him or her if they’d be willing for the superwealthy to be richer if it meant improved conditions for the absolute poorest among us.

Let's do a quick thought experiment.

For 50 years Lilly Getsit started and grew businesses. In all cases, she employed increasing numbers of workers as the companies grew. Employment continued to increase even after Lilly sold the companies to new owners.

Ms. Getsit redirected some of the proceeds from the sale of each business into personal investments, but sank the remainder into the startup and growth of more, bigger, and better companies as the years and her expertise advanced.

Our Lilly grew filthy rich. At "retirement," she left a trail of 50,000 permanent jobs in many medium sized companies.

Now then, a question for the "income gap" worriers. At precisely which point in Lilly's business successes did she have "enough" money? At what point would the worriers tell Lilly that she had to stop creating jobs and instead "spread" her money to people who had done nothing to earn that money? How many low-earning or unemployed people receiving a "share" of Lilly's money does it take to justify never realizing the jobs that Lilly would have created had she not been stopped by redistribution-obsessed progressives?

Gap worriers don't like such questions. They don't like such questions at all.

Click HERE to receive all posts by email FREE

© 2011 Chuck Rogér