Few people outside of these United States would look at someone like me, and count me anything like poor.
That said, most people inside our country, wouldn’t consider me anywhere close to wealthy.
In the best of times, I reside around the middle of the middle class; in the worst, I would be considered below the poverty level.
Fortunately, those bad times are not all that common for me. Most of the time, I have a great deal with which to play. The current moment, is one that fits the “worst of times” model. I hope for that not to long be true.
Here’s the thing though, even when I’m in a comparatively impoverished state. I still eat reasonably well, I’ve clothes on my back, and if I’m careful, a roof over my head.
Can I go out on a moment’s notice, and buy whatever my heart desires on my best day? To date, that has not been the case.
Even so, I live in relative comfort, mostly having my wants fulfilled, to say nothing of my needs.
I bring this up because of an interesting phenomenon I see in this country.
There’s a tendency to look at the wealthy as doing some sort of harm in the maintenance of their riches.
I look at this viewpoint and ask myself a simple, one-word question, “Why?”
It seems to be pretty obvious, that a person willing to put in a comparatively small amount of work, can live a life of relative opulence when compared to many in the world.
A little bit more effort, can put one easily, in the top fifty percent of the country’s wealth brackets.
So when I see people arguing that the rich hoarding assets of various kinds to themselves are causing those in poverty to somehow be more poor, I have to scratch my head.
Here’s the reality. Whether some person is obscenely well-monied, seems to have virtually nothing to do with those persons living in extreme poverty anywhere.
And the funny thing is, if you were to take the things possessed by those with means and give them to those who have not, unless you made it impossible for it to happen, that largess would wend its way right back to those who had it before, in all likelihood.
If it didn’t, it would almost certainly find its way into the hands of others in a conglomerate fashion.
Put another way, the things taken would go from one set of rich folks, to a new set thereof.
This is invariably the case.
Don’t believe me? Simply peruse the history of instances where this sort of activity has happened in past.
Funnily, tyrannical government ensconcements are an excellent example. Many of the regimes in question, counted themselves Socialist, and swore up and down, that the people would benefit greatly by their taking that possessed of those with many resources, and distributing them as they saw fit.
What typically ends up happening? The leaders and the upper echelons end up living in castles or palaces, being driven about by chauffeurs, and jet setting about the world—often in private aircraft.
What about the common Joe? How do things tend to work out for him? In most cases, he find himself not just not better off, but in substantially worse shape than before the takeover occurred.
The one thing that seems to be consistently true, is that the people live in equal poverty, while the leadership is thriving, high off the hog as it were.
You would think it would all come crashing down pretty quickly, but between the perceived nobility of duty on the part of the people, and the fact that those in positions of power, can live in wealth without tipping things over, this situation tends to remain in place for an extended period—often at least the lifetime of the dictator who grabbed power at the start.
To better maintain the status quo, those who don’t subsist on doing their duty to the state, can typically be terrorized by people or teams thereof, who’re paid relatively well for their service.
And because those in high positions do things like, abolish elections, or coerce the people at large to continue to “vote” for them via the same sorts of tactics they use to quell open revolt, they can claim a mandate of the people when those outside their control question their legitimacy.
Getting back to my original thought though, what is it that makes you think taking the resources of those in places of wealth, will better serve you, than if they keep them in their possession?
Is their substance largely in the form of food? Will taking their palatial residences provide shelter for more than a few people?
Perhaps you think absconding with their currency, will help those in need.
Imagine this, if a person is worth thirty three billion dollars, and you take all he has, and distribute among the U. S. population at large, giving an equal amount to each citizen, each person would receive roughly $100, considering the population of the country.
Even if you took the cash from every rich person in America, chances are good you’d end up in the low thousands distributing it evenly.
Someone once suggested, giving a million dollars to each person over the age of 65 and telling them they had to retire. If that was just ten million folks, you’d have to give yourself a budget of $10,000,000,000,000 (ten trillion dollars), before even considering administrative costs.
I don’t know what the combined wealth of those over say, a million dollars in this country amounts to, but I’d bet it wouldn’t be nearly enough to give everybody in the country more than a couple thousand dollars each. Many make more than you could provide them, in a single biweekly paycheck.
So, do you really think taking what the rich have from them, and distributing it to those who have less is a good idea? I hope based on what I’ve said, you’ll change your opinion.
Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.