Raise the Hammer

A Smith, I haven't been following the whole discussion here, but I wanted to respond to your last comment.

Although I agree with you in principal it doesn't, of course, always follow that rich people work the hardest, or even that they 'deserve' all their money :) In our current system of government many tax breaks are given to the folks who demand it the most. And the monetary rewards for the super rich are sometimes based on out-of-whack principals that provide obscene amounts of money for very little work (or talent).

In an ideal world our tax and reward system would be directly related to an individuals work effort and skill set, but sadly, this is not always so. If it were then the guy working three jobs would pay minimal taxes and the CEO who plays golf every Friday would pay ++$.

I agree with your central point though - people need to be enabled. Folks who need a leg up should get just that - a leg up - not a crutch to lean on. But at the same time we have to recognize that when we have an increasing divide between the richest and the poorest in this country, this distorts our whole world order. Put simply, whether you evaluate the current distribution of wealth by hard work or talent or whatever - it just isn't fair!

I think many of us have a curious affinity for the multi-millionaire CEO's of this world. We somehow feel that their 1000% more income is deserved because they work harder than we do, take more risk, have more talent, whatever. And, by the same token, we feel that the tax breaks offered to them and their corporations (where a lot of their wealth is channeled) are deserved because they are providing jobs.

It's true we need to reward risk takers, entrepreneurs, hard workers and folks with in demand skills, but these rewards also have to be according to some kind of scale and, of course, affordable to tax payers and shareholders.

Going back to these 'poor people' (I hate that expression...) I would agree that yes, we do need to 'enable' people in difficulty and not coddle them. We should not be offering any programs or incentives unless there is a clear link between the money invested and a potential return. Those returns won't always be in $'s of course (for instance in the case of long-term healthcare/disabled support) - it will be a moral 'return' in some cases which is fine because we are a compassionate country - but in simplistic terms, every dollar spent should be regarded as an investment so that I, as a tax payer can ask, 'what do I get out of it?' This is no less than I do when spending my own money and it should be the same principal that is applied when spending my tax dollars.

Hope I didn't digress too much from the thread.

Cheers

Ben Ben