Redistribution's fatal flaw
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, March 29, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
President Obama's idea to “spread the wealth around” sounds great but doesn't work — and here's why.
John always saved during his career, so he had a comfortable nest egg when he retired. George made just as much money as John, but spent money as quickly as he got it. When George reached retirement age, he had little savings. Should government take money from John to pay for George's retirement?
Mary went to college and studied hard, found a great job and became wealthy. Suzie, who had the same IQ as Mary in high school, didn't go to college and worked a number of odd jobs her entire life. She barely scratched out a living. When Suzie reached retirement age, she had nothing. Should government take money from Mary and redistribute it to Suzie?
Liberals say “yes.” But if we continue down the redistribution path, future Johns might not save and future Marys might not work.
We cannot build a moral and self-reliant society by punishing success and rewarding failure because failure is an important way that people learn things. If we don't allow people to fail and accept the consequences of their decisions, then our civilization is on a fast track to extinction.
We can find a way to help the needy without bankrupting our finances or our morals.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett’s choice
- Not reviled abroad
- Islam & women
- Math in common?
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Invest in pre-K
- Slots & property taxes
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Take back your county
- Medicaid’s future