What’s Wrong With Being Rich?

“What we have said is as part of a broader package we should have revenues, and the best place to get those revenues are from folks like me who have been extraordinarily fortunate, and that millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay a little bit more. . . And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need . . .”
- Pres. Barak Obama, press conference of July 11, 2011, attempting to sell a debt limit plan that includes tax increases on the “rich.”

“A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.”
- James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
- Thomas Jefferson


(I must preface the following by stating that I am not rich, I have never been rich, and chances are I will never be rich. So, I am not writing this with thoughts of my own self-interest.)

During this summer’s heated, and intolerably prolonged, debt ceiling debate, President Obama has seldom missed an opportunity to engage in class warfare. Every speech and press conference is saturated with tried and true leftist gems like “shared sacrifices,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate jet owners,” “everyone must do their part,” and “pay their fair share.” This should hardly be surprising. With the exception of the race card, class envy and resentment is the most devastating weapon in the liberal/progressive arsenal. What is most unsettling - actually it’s terrifying – is the underlying belief system revealed by statements such as the quote above from the President’s press conference. Please, take a moment to go back and read his quote again. I’ll wait.

What he is basically saying is that he wants to raise taxes, and the best place to go to increase revenues is the wealthy. As Willie Sutton famously replied when asked why he robbed banks, that’s where the money is. This may seem reasonable, but Obama continues by whining that it is not fair that people like him (i.e., multi-millionaires) should be “able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that [they] don’t need.” That’s the scary part. Whose life does he think it is anyway? Do we all own our own lives and the fruits of our labor, or are our lives and our earnings possessions of the United States government? Do we work for ourselves, or do we work for a federal government that tells us how much of our own hard-earned money we are “able to keep?” If Obama’s quote is any indication, clearly in response to both questions he seems inclined to agree with the latter supposition. Secondly, what does he mean by “additional income?” It seems to imply a certain predetermined upper threshold of personal income, above which any money is considered “additional.” Who exactly determines what constitutes “additional” income is unclear, however, presumably the President already has a pretty good idea. Finally, who is Obama to say what amount of income people need or don’t need? This is the classic statist mentality; the State will decide how much money each person “needs,” the State will judge how much income is too much, or “additional,” the State will determine if a private company has made excessive profits, and the State will select how confiscated income will be redistributed. I told you this was scary stuff.

Almost as disturbing is Obama saying he will not accept a deal in which he, as a multi-millionaire, is “asked to do nothing.” As a good Liberal, a proponent of the merits of Big Government solutions, and a champion of those less fortunate, must you be asked to pay your “fair share” or make a “shared sacrifice,” Mr. President? Have you no free will? If you have all that additional income that you don’t need, why don’t you just write out a check for a couple million dollars and send it to the Treasury Department? It’s right next door to the White House; you could run it over and save the postage. I am sure the Treasury will accept your check. Better yet, Mr. President, why don’t you give half your income to charity? The Obamas made over $1.7 million in 2010 and paid about $450,000 in federal taxes. That still nets them about $1.25 million. How much do they really “need”? Surely a family of four living in public housing and taking public transportation can live on $250,000 a year. He doesn’t need that “additional” $1 million. Give it to charity. No, in the Liberal mind, it is the government’s role to take from those who they deem to have too much money and give it to those in need. Oh, and by the way, in 2009 the Obamas made over $5.5 million. I have searched in vain for the news story reporting how they gave all that un-needed, additional income to the Treasury.

Why are Liberals so eager to demonize the rich? What exactly is wrong with being rich? I love rich people. I wish there were more rich people. I admire people who strive to become rich. Contrary to popular Liberal belief, rich people create more rich people, not more poor people. Wealthy venture capitalists risk money on individuals or fledgling companies with creative ideas, innovative products, or unique services. These entrepreneurs, if successful, create jobs, wealth, and a better standard of living. Microsoft and Apple did not just make Bill Gates and Steve Jobs billionaires; they made thousands of early investors into millionaires, created hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs, and improved the standard of living for millions of people around the world.

The reason Liberals/Progressives demonize the rich and engage in class warfare is obvious. It is the same reason they continually employ divisive racial tactics. Liberalism views society as a collection of groups rather than individuals. Liberal policies are always touted as benefiting a particular subset of society such as the elderly, the poor, minorities, or labor unions, all for the "common good." In order to win elections and maintain power, Liberals must pit what may be considered their favored groups against the perceived groups of their opponents. They must play on fears, resentments, and prejudices in order to solidify support and motivate their voters. Libertarians, on the contrary, view the world as one group of individuals, as the preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform states so eloquently:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.


“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
- Thomas Jefferson

Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!

Think Libertarian.