Entry: New Socialism in New Jersey Wednesday, May 05, 2004



Who said socialism is dead? It's alive and well in New Jersey... or at least on life support. In a preview of things to come should John Kerry win the election this November, Governor Jim McGreevey recently proposed a plan to raise the income tax for everyone in the state who makes more than $500,000 a year, which will be given to lower-income residents as a tax rebate. In much the same way, John Kerry wants to raise the federal income tax for everyone in America who makes more than $200,000.

I've often wondered when it became the job of government to punish those who make more money by taking a larger percentage of it away. Is it a crime of some sort to do well? No, even then one would at least be owed a trial first. Democrats like McGreevey and Kerry simply declare that the more a person makes, the higher a percentage he or she must donate, to be given to people who didn't work for it. Is there any other name for this but income redistribution, the hallmark of socialism? A certain amount of taxes are necessary to provide for the essential functions of government, but taking taxes from some in order to give it to others is simply ridiculous. (Sorry, Robin Hood was redressing a wrong, not creating one... and he wasn't the government.) Remember that Karl Marx and Frederick Engels proposed a heavy progressive income tax as one of the measures necessary for the advance of Communism. A progressive income tax increases the number of people dependent on the State for sustenance, reducing or even eliminating their self-reliance and autonomy. Naturally, they tend to vote for the people who promise to continue the "bread and circuses;" an automatic vote for Democrats from the apathetic masses.

How does that work? What sense does that make? Say you're twelve years old and charge $5 to cut my lawn. You spend a hot, sweaty hour pushing a lawnmower around my yard. When it comes time to pay you, I only give you $3... and give $1 to each of your two friends who watched cartoons while you worked. Next time, you charge me $10... but I give $2.50 to each of your friends, handing you only $5. "Well, that's only fair," I say. "They had less money than you." Would you ever visit me again, except to egg my house on Mischief Night? I'll bet those two friends of yours wouldn't like that.

What Democrats seem to forget is that the majority of people earning over $500,000 -- or even $200,000 -- are business owners and investors. When they feel the pinch of higher taxes, the last thing they'll do is pay with a smile. Radio ads touting McGreevey's tax proposal claim that it's "a small sacrifice for 28,000 to make." New Jersey will see that tax base drying up, should that enforced "sacrifice" become law. Some people who fall into the "making too much" category may move out of the state altogether, taking their money with them. Others will move their money out of the stock market and into tax shelters, putting it out of McGreevey's reach. Those who own businesses will not expand their business as they might otherwise have done, and will not hire new employees they might otherwise have hired. Most of those 28,000 people making over $500,000 won't be making that involuntary "sacrifice" the Democrats have decided they won't miss, or will make up the loss in other ways which will cost the state jobs and growth. So how will McGreevey pay for the big tax rebate he's promising "middle class" citizens he'll take from the pockets of the too-rich? How will he pay the increased ranks of the unemployed? He'll just have to raise that extra tax a little bit more to make up the shortfall. Repeat cycle.

Hmm... well, $200,000 is still quite a lot of money for New Jersey residents to make, isn't it? Surely the people making all that money can afford a small sacrifice as well? Then, perhaps those selfish people earning $100,000 might look as though they're making too much money... And if you think that this all sounds like a bad deal for New Jersey taxpayers, how do you think people at the same income levels might react to Kerry playing the same games with the federal income tax?

   14 comments

Maureen
May 6, 2004   09:24 AM PDT
 
Damn, I guess this means I have to move again!!!
Jamie from Alabama
May 6, 2004   11:55 AM PDT
 
Come to Alabama - no socialism here in the deep South, at least, not yet. Low property taxes. Low Cost of Living. They just keep jacking up sales taxes on tobacco, liquor (so-called "sin taxes"). They attempted to raise our income taxes last year and it was voted down by the people. The voters are demanding "accountability".
d_Brit
May 6, 2004   06:40 PM PDT
 
here's the reasoning process:

we are all created equal (literally)

Observation reveals that some people end up with more than others

either they are better than me in some fashion or they got lucky, or they cheated

BUT they can't be better than me because this is a democracy and we were all created equal

if those who have more than me got "lucky" then it's an accident & they don't deserve it.

if they cheated they don't deserve it.

Therefore either way "rich" people must give until they don't have anymore than anyone else
Jamie from Alabama
May 6, 2004   07:41 PM PDT
 
The really sad thing is that there have been reports of "games" used in teaching our children which instill Socialistic ideas. Supposedly teaching our children to share, but actually teaching them about the "redistribution of wealth"! It was one of the topics on Bill O' one evening.
StarkTruth
May 6, 2004   10:19 PM PDT
 
Here is a good one for you guys. From a reader of my site, he literally wrote this and ABSOLUTELY denies that he is a Socialist.

"The Democrats want to raise the standard of living for the lower class thus raising the standard of living for the middle and rich class.

The best way to demonstrate this is to think of the Democrats as being the NFL where all the teams share revenue giving every team a chance to win the championship and increasing the valve of all 32 NFL teams. Now the Republicans are like MBL where there are no revenue sharing, only 4 to 6 teams have a chance of winning the championship, and there is a huge difference in the valve of the franchises. Now you can see why the NFL has replaced MBL as the national pastime and Kerry will replace Bush as President come November. "

Of course he can't even spell MLB but hey, what do you expect.
JM
May 7, 2004   11:02 AM PDT
 
Well, I never thought of the NFL as a socialist institution before... nope, still don't. If it was, then each player would be paid the same no matter what, and be expected to give their best performance on the field. And if the NFL was like the Democrats, they'd spend all their time whining about how baseball players get all the glory, painting baseball players as evil, greedy sports-mongers, dog-piling on any little mistake any player makes while demanding their own be ignored no matter how glaring, insisting that equal tv time be given to both sports regardless of what the spectators want to watch, and scheming to have baseball outlawed. Oh, and there'd be almost no black football players, while the NFL constantly portrayed baseball as a racist sport, despite several of the MLB commisioners being black. Does that about cover it?
Jamie
May 7, 2004   11:16 AM PDT
 
well done JM, that just about sums it up.

I think that guy must watch a lot of sports (mostly football) and listen to Sports Talk Radio. He apparently has learned everything he knows about ecomomics from watching Democratic campaign ads during the commercial breaks.

I can tell one thing - he doesn't like MLB very much. Definitely a fan of pro football.
Jamie
May 7, 2004   11:30 AM PDT
 
StartTruth - if you really want to get the poor guy/girl confused, just point them at this Jay Bryant article about capitalism and "Prosperity Waves" - http://www.theoptimate.com/2041
NA
May 7, 2004   02:50 PM PDT
 
I was very recently in Mongolia with a big group of liberals from my school, and we had a number of interesting discussions, one in particular about the changes in Mongolia's political system (from communism under Russian control to a more recent style of democracy and capitalism, etc.) One of my friends (the most liberal one . . .) didn't understand the concept of communism or socialism, and when we tried to explain about income distribution etc., she said "That doesn't make any sense. Then people wouldn't have any incentive to work hard." I simultaneously wanted to hug her and smack her, because the Dems (and her!) can't apply that logic to the US. They just don't seem to get it.
Jamie from Alabama
May 7, 2004   03:53 PM PDT
 
I remember when I was in high school (I'm 50 years old, so you can imagine how long ago that was), I had to research a paper I was writing about Socialism and Communism. What I learned from writing that paper opened up my eyes. At about the same time, I was reading Ann Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" - and it influenced my thinking for life. Everyone should read that book to see what the future would be like if all the productive people in the world just up and quit working and stopped supporting those who demand to be handed everything in life.
NA
May 7, 2004   05:08 PM PDT
 
It's sitting in my stack of books to read, along with Ayn Rand's others. I've heard that it's great, next on my list . . . . :-)
Jamie from Alabama
May 7, 2004   07:47 PM PDT
 
be sure to read it. Its really good. Set in the 40s or 50s, but it can be applied to now
alan
May 8, 2004   07:32 PM PDT
 
jaime

there is always 1984 or brave new world

alan
alan
May 8, 2004   07:32 PM PDT
 
sorry i mean jamie

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments