You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

By Reverend William J. H. Boetcke


    In the 1960s Martin Luther King was shot and there were widespread riots in cities throughout the United States.  During those riots the poorer populations of cities like Camden, Newark and Trenton, in New Jersey looted stores therebye transferring all the wealth of those stores to themselves.  Today in 2016 Camden is one of the poorest and most dangerous cities in the United States much poorer than it was before the wealth redistribution of the 60s.  How is that possible?  Wealth was distributed to the poor.  Shouldn't the poor be well off?  The reason is that for a population to be wealthy it has to create wealth and for that to happen the environment of the area the population lives in has to be conducive to the creation of wealth.  The more wealth is forcefully distributed the less incentive there is for anyone to create wealth.

I saw an enlightening response to a comment about wealth redistribution that I've posted below. The topic was in regard to using global warming as an excuse to redistribute the wealth.
Comment: Over half of the current billionaires (523 in total) come from just three countries: the US (415), Germany (55) and Russia (53)'
Why does one family need trillions of dollars that they cant do with billions, let alone millions.
Why is wealth redistribution considered evil when so few own so much, and so many own so little.
(ps. Don't know why I am bothering, my comments are only going to be 'moderated' anyway).
Response: Taxing carbon dioxide takes money away from the American companies that hire people. The result is that they hire less people. The result can be worse than that because they then can't compete with foreign companies that are not taxed so much. The American companies can go out of business as a result and people who were earning a salary find themselves on welfare. That is worse than it sounds because if there are no American companies whose taxes pay for welfare the government borrows to pay for welfare. The government can't do that forever and the result is that the debt gets higher and higher. That leads at best to inflation and to making everyone poorer. In order to compete for jobs people have to be willing to earn less or the same as their competition but if a large part of their salaries goes to taxes for paying off the debt they won't be able to do that.   In the future there will be no money or worthless money to support people without jobs if we keep borrowing to pay them now.
There's another question we can ask which is "OK maybe we shouldn't tax corporation for carbon dioxide but maybe we should tax the rich people." My answers to that are
1) if you could start a business and make a million dollars would you want the government to take it away from you?
2) Would you bother starting a business if you all the money you made would be taken away by the government?
Businesses create wealth and benefit everyone. There will be no reason to start them and to sacrifice to make them successful if the government takes their money.
 
 
 
The Failing Legacy of the Great Society