The Poisonous Seduction of Taxing the Rich

Rate this post

The turnout was much bigger than expected, and the message was clear: people in Britain are totally opposed to the government’s choice to prioritise the needs of bankers and big business over those of ordinary citizens.
So claims one Alex Pinkerman – nom de plume for an anonymous union organizer – writing in the UK Telegraph this weekend.

Yes, the riots in London, which destroyed small shops and assaulted on-duty police, were presumably prompted by anger that the British government was not sufficiently taxing the rich to pay for generous public compensation.
You read that correctly: these people actually believe that Britain is pandering to wealthy bankers.
Let’s take a moment to look at how much money the British government already takes from the rich through an ultra-progressive tax rate. According to HM Revenue & Customs (England’s version of the IRS), citizens who earn more than £150,000, or about $240,000, forfeit a full 50 percent of their income. Middle class workers pay less than half of that.
In the business world, corporations pay 26 percent of their profit. The death tax on wealthy estates is 40 percent. Capital gains are taxed up to 28 percent.
And yet, shockingly, this hasn’t been enough to please the likes of Alex Pinkerman. The British government is teetering on insolvency and forced to stop spending. What went wrong?
European socialism has proven one fundamental fact about life; taking from the wealthy is never enough. It becomes addictive as more and more ways are found to spend the money. It’s an easy source of revenue, just take it at gunpoint, and then use it to buy whatever you want – you can always go back for more.

Until there isn’t any more left. That is where Britain finds itself right now. Taking half of the money earned by rich people has not been enough, and only now are they starting to learn that their entire paycheck will never be enough.
What will come of Britain as the country finds itself at this turning point? A Reagan revolution would reverse the trend and lower taxes for everyone. Yet signs from the British government signal that their conservative party doesn’t have the guts to do this. The likely path is that big government proponents will double down and begin to seize more. Because that is what progressives do.
Readers might ask at this point, what happens when there are no rich people left? Ahh, but you don’t understand the progressive mind. That’s the beauty of blaming the rich – it’s quite an easy bar to raise or lower.
For unemployed teenagers rioting in the streets, anyone who makes a middle class salary is richer than they are. For uneducated immigrants not allowed to vote, the privileged “native” class, no matter how poor they may be, still have an unfair advantage.
And so the beat goes on. As society slides further into poverty, whoever happens to remain at the top becomes, by default, the rich. It is a foolproof political ploy, and it literally becomes an addiction for collective societies.
To understand how far this seduction can go, it’s important to research the inner workings of the Soviet Union prior to WW2. Far too few Westerners know anything about life behind the Iron Curtain. And yet this is essential to study, because the Soviet Union fully exposed the progressive playbook a century ago.

In 1928, Stalin found his factory worker bees unhappy, because, well, communism was not exactly providing them enough food. So his administration stooped to blaming massive starvation on… farmers. Not giant corporations that owned farmland. Not farms owned by banks. Just individual, family-run farms that happened to own their own land.
These greedy villains, with their plows and their barns and their cows they would not give away, were blamed for Stalin’s inability to feed loyal factory workers. Stalin sought to punish them by seizing wealth they were unfairly keeping for themselves. He ordered farmers to surrender all of their property – land, buildings, plows, seed, livestock – to the collective.
These hardworking farmers,  puzzled to find themselves attacked as the proverbial Goldman Sachs of their day, finally recognized the uselessness of blaming the rich. Rather than giving their livestock to Stalin’s government, they slaughtered the animals themselves and absorbed much of the meat into an underground market.
Stalin then used the media to call them viciously selfish wealthy elites. Many more starved across Russia.
To read more about the kulak rebellion, visit here.
That is the end game of taxing the rich. That’s the dead end waiting at the finish line for Progress. When the corporations and the banks and the oil executives are gone, the rich become whoever is left.
If the communists and community organizers in Britain get their way, England will begin its slow march in this direction. Because in the end, that is what folks like Alex Pinkerman will settle for.
-Candance
 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “The Poisonous Seduction of Taxing the Rich

  1. “creative civil disobedience” my arse…you can’t reason with people think a 50% tax rate is not enough.

     
  2. It is a sad state of affairs, when Americans start drinking out of the cup of communism……better yet the cup of Islamo-commie-nazism.
    However….there is a point which must be made clear, while the wealthy maybe be over taxed, not all corporations ay their far share…..IE: GE who not only payed 0.00 on some 14 billion in profit but received a huge refund…..
    mostly via subsidy ….I have a problem with this! Subsidies lead to statist corporations…period!

     
  3. lowtechgrannie

    Years ago there was a big influx of British actors who moved out of England to make their permanent residence in other countries due to extremely high tax rates. I believe in the 1970s their income was taxed well above 50%. I look for many of the Brits to vote with their feet again. Now, this “tax the rich” mania of the lower classes has gone global. It seems like a John Galt moment.

     
  4. I wonder how many of those rioting Brits have ever been interviewed for a job by a poor person.
    My guess is zilch.
    -Dave

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *