Trickle up economics

According to Democrats, any tax plan that does not preferentially tax the rich is just unfair. The rich have more and so they should pay more, not only absolutely, but relatively. This will allow the government to have more money which it will use to:

• Hire people to administer the money through bureaucracies.
• Pay to big corporations that have contracts with the government.
• Give to individuals who do not work, who will use that money to buy stuff (food, clothing, shelter, utilities and luxuries) on the free market.
• Give to insurance companies to administer national health plans that provide a trickle-down, budget centered health care.

Somehow, they see this as better than allowing money to remain in the private sector. Private sector money distributes as follows:

• People hired to perform services and to produce goods. People decide how much to work, how hard to apply themselves, how much to learn and grow, and create increased value for their work by being more effective and more efficient in the workplace.
• Corporations spend money to develop new goods and services, to buy new equipment (that is made by people working for other companies).
• Working people spend their money on food, clothing, shelter, utilities and luxuries in the free market
• Private health plans compete for your business. While just a dream, there is a hope of trickle up, patient centered health care (see www.wiserwiki.com )

Certainly, if you are a person who does not believe in your own ability to succeed, a person who does not believe in the ability of any person to achieve a measure of success with effort, a person who believes that redistribution of wealth leads to happiness in those whose wealth is confiscated against their wishes and happiness in those who get additional wealth without their doing anything to merit that influx of wealth, then you may see redistribution as a good thing. However, there is little concrete data to support that position. The data does support the fact that those who do not believe in themselves do not succeed, but there is no data that supports largess as a contributor to self-belief. On the other hand, charity benefits the giver and places a burden on the taker to pay it forward or to use the gift to gain self sufficiency. Charity is private sector. No coercion is needed, just good will towards man. But, if you are a liberal, you probably do not believe that enough people have good will, or perhaps you believe that charity is demeaning. Again, little data to support that. It does produce a burden of repayment, but what is wrong with that? That is the human thing to do. Perhaps you believe that the rich buy your labor for pennies on the dollar, that you, and others like you, are underpaid. The truth is that, as long as someone is willing to do your job well enough to satisfy your employer for less than you want, you are overpaid. Unions allow individuals to stand together and refuse to work unless certain conditions are met. The solution is to become an employer yourself or to make yourself indispensible to your employer by honing your skills and knowledge. Increasing your value is within your power.