Many liberals in this country believe in using local, state, and federal government programs aimed at the poor and in conjunction with very high tax rates on the wealthy to redistribute wealth in America. However, in most cases these kinds of programs only redistribute the wealth "out" of our major cities; or, out of our states; or, worst yet, completely out of the country.
With all of the so-called wealth distribution programs in existence in America, one would think that the poor would be better off today than they were 50 years ago. But, instead of bettering the lives of the poor, the disparity between the two classes is greater than it has ever been.
Liberals like to point to the Bush Tax Cuts as the cause. But, it wasn't Bush who was in office during the last 50 years of decline in our cities and states. In almost every case where you have stagnant growth in America, you have the Blue State politics of the left with hefty government programs aimed at the poor, and high taxes aimed at the rich. Cities like Detroit are in near ruin with the City Managers electing to tear down houses in an effort to more centralize services in the most densely populated areas. The states in the rust belt continue to rust away and major city, inner-city crime in America is choking our jails.
What the liberals have never learned is that high taxes on the rich drive the rich elsewhere; leaving most of the middle and lower classes to foot the bill for all of their government programs. They just don't seem to understand that the wealthy are highly mobile and rarely tied to some 9-to-5 job in any particular city. In our effort to be more like Europe, we are creating the same problems it has with its wealthy moving out of Europe.
In the last month, two stories came out with regard to two high profile rich persons in this country that can prove my point. Recently, Rush Limbaugh sold his New York City condo for more than double what he paid for it. But, the real story about the Rush condo sale was that, with that sale, he would no longer have to pay income taxes to the City and State of New York for any wages that he would have accumulated during the time he lived in that condo. Instead, his earnings would be fully safeguarded in his permanent home in the no-income-tax State of Florida. Rush warned he would do this when the City and State governments in New York raised their taxes on the rich. So, who won in this case. Rush or the governments?
Then, there's the story of U.S. Senator John Kerry from the state of Massachusetts. Recently, we learned that Kerry and his wife's decided to buy a new, $7 million New Zealand-made sailing yacht. Instead of ordering this New Zealand-built ship through a Massachusets boat dealer, the Kerry's purchased the boat in Rhode Island and subsequently moored it there; thus avoiding hefty sales taxes and the yearly excise taxes that would have been applied if the boat was purchased and moored in Mass. So, in doing so, the state of Massachusetts was doubly screwed in getting any taxes from the Kerry's. Further, American yacht builders and workers were left out in the cold when the Kerry's, in the midst of a recession, decided to buy a ship that was made by workers in New Zealand.
These kinds of stories go on day-after-day in America. And, in each case, the story is driven by high taxes. Over the years America has lost most of it's manufacturing base because of regulation and taxes. Now, many of our rich are moving, too. The result of this "redistribution of wealth" will be further economic deterioration in our cities and states in this once-great country.