What is this obsession with redistributing wealth? Do people really believe that wealth is a zero-sum game? That if Ben Affleck (that poor, poor man) has millions and millions of dollars from making appearances in mediocre movies, that means some kid in America, or someplace else, has to eat boiled shoes? That if Ben had not made that money, that hypothetical kid would be able to afford, say, a cheese and baloney sandwich?
I call shenanigans on anyone who assumes that tax cuts for the rich are a bad thing. Let's break it down.
First, A tax cut = a tax cut for the rich, too. When taxes get lowered, they don't just get lowered for people on the bottom. Nor do they just get lowered for people in the middle. They get lowered for EVERYBODY, which plays out to be a pretty good thing. Why? Why should those despicable capitalists get to keep so much money when they have so much already? Come here. Lemme whisper this in your ear. Because it's their money, and chances are, we gave it to them. More on this in a second.
Second, who says the government knows better than I do how to spend my money? This is a bone to pick with Hillary and Ben, both. First of all, Hillary says at a fund raising dinner, "We're going to take things away from you, for your own good." Does anyone else besides me think that's a particularly scary thought? America is one of the most beloved (and hated) countries on the face of the earth in a large part due to our freedoms and our economic success. When you threaten in one sentence to impact both of those things, you either show that you don't understand how the system works (and I give Mrs. Clinton more credit than that), or you think the system is wrong. Hillary may honestly believe that running health care through a massive national bureacracy is an improvement, but glancing north at our neighbors convinces me that isn't the case. Ben Affleck recently proclaimed at a press conference that he had a tax cut that amounted to over a million dollars, and he asked if that seemed right. I suppose I'd respond with a couple of questions. First, if you saved over a million dollars in taxes, how much did you pay? Probably a lot more than a million dollars, right? Second, what did you do with the million dollars? If you think that the money should have been used to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor, that's fine. Who's stopping you from using it to feed, clothe and shelter the poor? If you think the money should have been used to provide health care, who's stopping you from starting a foundation that provides health care to disadvantaged people? The truth is that million dollars represents an opportunity for him to improve the lives of those around him. More than that, it places the responsibility on him to do what he wants done with it. And he'll be able to make sure it gets where he wants it to - it's his money.
But let's say he decides to blow it all on Big Macs. So what? That million dollars gets pumped into the economy, paying the checks of poor, pimply faced teenagers who then use the money to buy their first car, save for college, or go see a ridiculously overpriced movie starring... someone else. (Sorry, Ben, you've been really striking out lately!)
But let's take a look at history. Armageddon, a movie starring Ben which I really liked, cost approximately $140M to make, according to imdb.com. How much was that movie worth? Again, according to imdb, it made over $201M, with another $104M in rentals. So, it cost $140M, and it was worth over $300M? Where did that extra $160 come from? Was it stolen from kids in Ethiopia? Of course not. Where did it come from? It's taken me a while to get this through my relatively thick skull, but there is no magic number of dollars available in the economy. Money is an arbitrary value that we assign to things. The value isn't in the money itself, the value is in the movie Ben & Co. made. The movie was worth more than the cost of making it. A lot more. Making that movie created wealth to the tune of about $165 million. No zero sum there, folks. Just added value. Let's look at Gigli. It cost $54m to make Gigli, according to imdb. What was that movie worth? According to imdb, about $6m. We say that movie "lost money". Where did it lose money? Where did it go? Reduced value. Non-zero-sum works both ways.
I'm picking on Ben Affleck here (poor guy), but it's only because he seems like such a nice guy, a personable, warm, lovable guy, and I just want to take him by the shoulders and show him how utterly, horribly wrong he is when he complains about saving money on taxes. (Besides, someday I'm going to BE one of those rich people, and I'd really prefer he not ruin things for the rest of us) ^.^'
Rant fuse lit by Michele at asmallvictory.net, who has an unhealthy fascination with Ted Rall.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment