Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    What Don’t You Understand About “It’s Not Your Money”

    What Don’t You Understand About “It’s Not Your Money”

    Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a horrible giveaway tantamount to welfare for the rich, rendering anyone who would suggest such a thing evil and greedy.

    That attitude is the fundamental public policy prescription of the Democratic Party and supportive economists, as expressed in an op-ed in The Washington Post, Five Myths About The Bush Tax Cuts.

    We could argue over the specifics, and the historical ignorance and wishful thinking that raising taxes results in more revenue or helps the economy.

    The argument over specifics is besides the point. It’s just more class warfare, presuming that someone who is successful needs to be punished.

    These Democratic talking points reflect the fundamental disconnect: It is not your money.

    I think the American people understand that point. The government works for us, not the other way around.

    You either believe it, or you don’t. The Democratic Party doesn’t.

    Update: Bruce McQuain has more patience than I do, and takes apart the specifics of the WaPo column.

    Related Posts:
    Trickle Down Economics Key To Obama Recovery
    The Revolt of the Kulaks Has Begun
    $1 Trillion Obama Will Never See

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Bookmark and Share


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    Wealth may be limitless, but there is absolutely a finite supply of money. The amount is published by the Fed, I believe weekly. It is called M1. The problem is that when money accumulates at the top, it stops circulating.
    The ultra rich simply speculate, which is why in the art market, for example, high end pieces shoot up in value while middling and low end pieces take a huge hit. The necessary solution is to continuously recycle the money from the top to the bottom. Hence the progressive income tax.


    Besides the point?

    > Out of control spending went hyperbolic from 2000 to 2008.

    That statement is hyperbole.

    The Repubs lost congress in 2006. The 2006 deficit was $100B and had been decreasing for several years. While $100B/year is a big number, Obama's deficit is $100B/month.

    The Repubs weren't saints. However, in every instance the Dem opposition wanted more spending, not less. And when the Dems took Congress, that's when the deficit "went hyperbolic".

    "The problem is that when money accumulates at the top, it stops circulating."

    What utter nonsense. If nothing else, the rich die, and their children piss it all away. =)

    What do you think they do with money? They leverage it to acquire more. How do you do that? By lending it, investing it, not hiding it in the mattress and sleeping on it. So, while they still have a claim to it – it continues to circulate!

    But I see you kind of vaguely grasp that.

    Regardless, the author's point remains. It. Is. Not. Your. Money. Or mine money or anyone else's money. And if you don't believe in private property, I don't want anything to do with, and there is NOTHING to discuss (irreconcilable concepts of reality).


    Ravi Batra has been publishing many studies on what the rich do with their money. They speculate, the middle class invests, the poor spend. And while it may be your money, it is worthless without the government guarantees behind it.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend