Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote for Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
Once in the restaurant, my server was wearing an 'Obama '08' tie. Again I laughed as he had given away his political preference - just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need-the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Citizen takes it upon self to play Obama & redistribute the wealth: Rewards the weak and poor over strong and working
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
9 comments:
What a nasty old woman you are. Just depressing. Perhaps when you're weak and poor, you'll enjoy being passed over too.
Drinks: $15
Entree: $30
Redistibuting the Wealth: Priceless
And you might give credit as to where you lifted this from since it's not original content.
This posting was sent to us by a reader and I don't know or care where she got it from. The story is a fable or a parable that is likely widely circulating on the internet.
And anonymous, in Obama's world when I'm "weak and poor" I will get the strong and working person's money in Obama's ideology.
Obama plans to reward the poor and weak, which is a great way to encourage people not to be strong.
I laughed. That was funny. :) But I also have to ask: aren't both candidates for a graduated income tax? Aren't both candidates in favor of sharing the wealth by giving some groups breaks and other groups hikes? I'm no tax historian or authority, by any means, but a quick glance on the web shows me that we've had a progressive income tax since 1861, with higher payrolls being taxed more than lower payrolls. I only ask because it seems like you're singling out Obama.
In this instance, I did single out Obama. And you are right. The government (regardless of who is in charge) uses taxation to pick winners and losers.
That's a big reason why I favor the Fair Tax.
OK, I understand now. :)
I stumbled across your site from Advance Indiana because I liked your comments there. When I read this post I was trying to reconcile "fair taxation" against the directed humor - which is why I asked. Thanks for the response.
Bob. The current income tax was put in place around 1913 and required a Constitutional Amendment to even make it legal for the Federal Government to, in a way not apportioned amongst the states, directly tax the citizens the of those sovereign states.
It started at 3 to 6% on only the very, very wealthy.
And HFFT. The redistribution is always fine to those who don't feel the thieving grip of Washington in their wallet. They certainly would protest if when they went to the bank, if their paycheck was higher than every other customer standing in line, it got shared with those other people.
Stealing money from those who can invest the money and make it grow and create more jobs should be a crime. The "fairness claim" where we have to take money from someone who can make it grow and give it to someone who plunders it is irresponsible and nonsensical. I just left the Republican Party and am now voting as a Libertarian as they seem to be the only political party who understands limited government and with the response from anonymous at the top of this page, I can only imagine that this person doesn't understand economics like many others. They are fooled into thinking that we must help others by destroying wealth instead of allowing the natural marketplace take care of people through wise and practical decisions. This same person will call people nasty and old and unsympathetic but fails to realize that their misguided ideals leads to greater loss of wealth and prosperity for all and would probably support increased taxation in the form of capital gains taxes and so forth which discourages investment and savings--which is the lifeblood of a prosperous society.
Post a Comment