The R-word

I don't have to wonder much why even Republicans who knew right from wrong, moral from immoral, voted for the orange psychopath who was later impeached not once but twice.

The following is a lengthy comment that a Republican posted in December 2015 in response to my post on income inequality. 

What is wrong with income inequality? Throughout history people of different skills have earned different amounts. I perform a job that requires significant skill and education and am appropriately compensated. Why is it wrong that I earn more than someone who picks blueberries or digs ditches (cue Caddyshack music). 

Now I will be provocative because I really hate the idea of redistribution. I am addressing only attempts at redistribution through governmental or legal means. Moral and ethical issues are separate. Why must my income be taken by the government through taxes and redistributed to those who earn less? What gives government the right to determine how much I or anyone else needs to live? What gives government the right to take my earnings just because I earn above some arbitrary line? It is my money. I earned it. I pay ridiculous amounts in taxes, donate significant amounts to charity, have a family to care for and a retirement (God willing) for which to save. Taking my money and giving it to someone who did not earn it and may or may not "deserve" it is a gross overreach of governmental banditry. If a hunter is more skilled and meets the limit, why shouldn't he eat well all winter? Why should he be forced to share with a lousy hunter who had no success?

Hypocrisy seems rampant in the debates over income inequality. How can anyone take Hillary Clinton seriously when she pretends to care about the plight of the common man and his income struggles? She earns more in a year than many of her supporters will earn in a lifetime. No one asks her to redistribute, and I certainly don't hear her volunteering to do so. Even Bernie Sanders, champion of the low-wage earner, earns 10 times more than those he says he wants to help. Why isn't he asked to redistribute his income? Everyone is shocked when an athlete signs a multi-gazillion dollar contract, but no one mentions income inequality in those conversations. Same with actors and singers. The target is almost always businessmen. Always evil corporations. When is the last time someone did the math? If a president of a multinational company that employs 100,000 who earns $10M per year decided to forgo $9M of his income in an effort to reduce income inequality with his employees, it would mean each employee would get all of $90 that year, or $0.043/hour if the employee works 2080 hours per year. For many people, that doesn't even pay one month's phone bill. What have we accomplished? Nothing. A whole lot of token salary cuts that are good for PR and nothing else.

Perhaps the conversation is really about those earning much more than I earn. Perhaps the conversation is really about those earning over $1M annually. If so, why is it such a hot-button campaign issue? There aren't enough people earning that much to make it an issue. It is an issue because people are uninformed enough to believe that if Sanders says he'll do it, it will happen when he becomes president. They seem to forget that Congress has to pass such a law, and there are a lot of rich people in Congress who will not want to pass such a law. I don't think even Obama and his overzealous use of executive order could force income redistribution. It's all a pipe dream that makes for good campaign sound bites but will never happen.

If people want to help those earning minimal amounts, cut government intervention, mandates and taxes. If businesses didn't have to pay such exorbitant amounts and meet such ridiculous demands, there'd be money enough to give everyone a raise. Until a $15 minimum wage passes, that is. Then businesses will either close shop or will automate as much as possible to reduce labor costs below such a crushing level. 

I removed ethical and moral components of the income redistribution conversation at the beginning because it is not the government's job. Period, end of sentence. Every human has an obligation to help those less fortunate, and it is up to every human to determine to what extent he can help. It is not the government's job to TELL me how much to help or even to force me to help. It is up to each person's conscience, nothing else. 

We are a capitalist country. Laissez faire.

My position has not changed from what I wrote in response: "We differ on what we mean as "moral" in this context."  Overlay the theme from yesterday's post, and the Republican political platform is practically all written up for the next version on which the orange psychopath can campaign!