Free Minds & Free Markets

Leftist Tax Schemes Bash the Rich, but Depend on Their Success

Government officials want as much revenue as possible so it can spend it with wild abandon. There will never be enough to satisfy them.

Nineteenth century historian Thomas Carlyle called economics "the dismal science" because of its predictions about scarcity and poverty. Those are immutable features of all societies, which explains why his snarky term remains widely used. Modern economics writer Thomas Sowell captured the same idea, but expanded upon it. "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it," he wrote. "The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

In other words, even though the laws of economics are as unchangeable as the laws of physics, the laws of politics remain unchanged, too. Elected officials will always promise more free stuff for the populace that is affordable once, they say, the rich pay their "fair share." They claim the increased tax rates and new spending will not have any ill effect on the economy, either. These old ideas are making a big comeback as the Democratic Party's progressive wing expands its influence in Washington, D.C. Free-market folks need to start pushing back.

I promised not to pay attention to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the lefty Democratic Congresswoman from New York, given that her half-baked ideas do not merit serious debate. However, conservatives have picked on her every move, thus turning her into a star. So now we have no choice but to pay attention when she says, "I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong," as she recently told a reporter.

We actually are discussing whether the government should allow the existence of billionaires. Here is an economic conundrum. The progressive experiment depends on wealthy people's continued economic success. California, which smugly touts itself as the national resistance to the Trump administration, is particularly dependent on tax revenues from billionaires and capital gains taxes. Earth to Ocasio-Cortez and others who share her views: Those universal healthcare proposals that California Democrats are cooking up could not move forward if not for the large share of wealthy people existing in the Golden State.

A CNBC News report from late December focused on how that month's stock-market drops were "very bad news" for California's state budget. The market has largely recovered, but the article noted a fact we should all keep in mind: "(T)he state's top 1 percent of personal income tax earners—roughly 164,000 tax returns—generate about half of the personal income taxes in California." That sounds like they are paying well beyond their "fair share."

No wonder the Franchise Tax Board zealously polices whether high-income Californians who claim to have moved out of state actually have moved their permanent residences elsewhere. No wonder state officials noticed when 138 residents fled after voters approved Proposition 30 tax increases in 2012. That is a small number in a state with nearly 40 million people, but it matters if they are particularly wealthy. Last year, even Democratic legislators expressed concern after the federal tax bill reduced deductions for wealthy Californians.

This progressive approach to income taxes is reminiscent of their approach to tobacco taxation. They want fewer billionaires to exist and want to level the playing field by approving punitive, confiscatory tax rates. Every time they increase these income-tax rates, however, the state becomes more dependent on the revenue from the wealthiest people. Likewise, lawmakers pass more tobacco taxes to discourage smoking, but instead the states have become addicted to tens of billions of dollars in revenue from their sales. A CBS report from 2012 found that only 3 percent of the money from taxes and settlements were funding anti-tobacco programs.

Here are some more dismal truths. Government officials want as much revenue as possible so it can spend it with wild abandon. There will never be enough to satisfy them. In California, record-setting revenue has not stopped the calls for new taxes—on commercial properties, for instance—to fund ever-more costly programs.

Government is like rust. It never sleeps. Thinking of Ocasio-Cortez's statement, maybe it is more like ringworm: it keeps spreading unless one takes definitive steps to stop it. Returning to the old days of super-high tax rates is a fool's errand. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards wrote, "globalization has dramatically changed the economy over recent decades," leading to movable tax bases that can escape the clutches of the big spenders.

Increasing the top rate from 37 percent to 70 percent, as Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives now are proposing, means a massive wealth transfer from the private to the public sector. This is the new big push from the left. The right deserves brickbats, too, given the Trump administration's soaring deficits and its own costly spending priorities. This is a dismal situation, but I prefer Sowell to Carlyle. The problem is politics, not economics.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He was a Register editorial writer from 1998-2009. Write to him at


Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Socialism = theft of body and wealth

  • DajjaI||

    The problem is kids today. We're mortgaging away their future, and they are silent. In fact they are taught that budget debts are actually healthy. This is the threat to their health and safety. Not climate change, not gun rights. I can understand why 99% couldn't care less. But 100.00? Wow.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Debts can be fine if the carrying costs are lower than the potential ROI or more accurately, Return on the Loan!

    The National Debt isn't a problem unless the Interest Rates on the debt increase too much, and those rates can vary a LOT over time.

    In one sense, it's like a business taking out a loan or me asking my bank for a mortgage. If my home might appreciate as fast or faster than inflation, a mortgage can be an investment.

    If I'm flipping houses in a Housing Bubble, all's well until the bubble pops, after which I can be bankrupt of ALL previous gains

    Massive college tuition loans are ok if your degree will be in a market with high demand and high pay. If not, well... you screwed yourself and your parents and high school guidance counselors failed you miserably! But they're not to blame. You should have learned those basics in Math or Eco classes years ago, same as SHE should have.

    Batshit Bernie, AOC, Pelosi and ALL their ilk are Economic Illiterates, and THAT is a really difficult problem to correct, as it becomes a cult/religion/belief after a while... as it is now. Impermeable to logic or rationale.

  • Joe_C||

    I don' think they're economically illiterate—well maybe AOC is. They're just power-hungry liars. At that level—at least one would hope—it's impossible to not understand how it works. And yet, we get people on both sides of the aisle who are willing to mortgage our future to put money in their own accounts. It's embezzlement.

    Being a Congressman isn't supposed to be a life-appointed position. There should've been term limits. Additionally, all bills should be single-issue, in plain text, and shorter than the Constitution. That would have hopefully kept us from getting into these shit bills that will eventually kill this country.

  • CGN||

    Bullshit. Governments are pissing away our children's future. The only reason there are budget deficits is that governments spend too much. Think you have money in your Social Security account. You don't have a PENNY in your account. FICA takes it out,of your paycheck, but before it is even "credited" to you the government spends it.

  • Brian||

    I've said it before: the progressive utopian wet dream requires billionaires to pay so they don't have to.

    It's a symbiotic relationship. They don't ever get rid of rich people. And deep down, they really don't want to.

  • Ordinary Person||

    That's bullshit. The hardest job I ever had was working at a Smoothie King. I was poor, over worked and under paid. Society but more specifically the guy who owned that restaurant was banking on my misery. So don't tell people working for low wages and asking for a little more are the selfish ones.

  • creech||

    Where's the rest of the story? You and your work buddies pooled your money with parents, etc., opened a franchise down the street, paid higher wages and benefits at lower prices, and put the selfish owner out of business? Or got the local politicians to send their armed agents around to force the selfish guy to raise wages (and automate his workforce)?

  • ||

    Oh, cry me a river screech. We've all been there.

    I remember a lefty getting all mad that his boss was laying off workers because there was no work at the mechanic shop. He felt the boss should turn in his Audi and pay less for a car.

    They're certifiable lunatics in their envy.

    That's none of your business I told him. Don't like it? You're always free to move on or do something for yourself.

  • BCarter||

    ^^^ Bingo.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    You were underpaid? How do you know? Were there a lot of other jobs nearby willing to pay you more? Why did you not take them?

    Underpaid? Obviously not.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    No one forced you to take that job and work for the guy who owned the restaurant.

    You were perfectly free to go elsewhere if you didn't like the terms of employment there.

    The actual value of any job, service or activity is based on the laws of supply and demand. There is not some intrinsic value that is politically determined by government entities.

  • Brian||

    I get it: you were working and unhappy, and it's all someone else's fault. And it wouldn't have been his fault if he were poor like you.

    You're making my point for me.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Being a lefty means never taking responsibility for yourself. They are like birds that can't leave the nest. They want government to be the new parents.

  • JesseAz||

    And shockingly when you were able to gain work experience you moved on to a better job whose work conditions you preferred. That's capitalism dummy.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The hardest job I ever had was working at a Smoothie King. I was poor, over worked and under paid

    If the hardest job you ever had was working at fucking fast-food stand, that's just sad. Fast-food work is boring, repetitious, and requires no thought beyond reading the damn order screen and making the food. Most of these places don't even do actual prep anymore because the food all comes in prepackaged from Cisco.

  • Weygand||

    Sysco also has a large presence in the restaurant industry

  • miketol||

    Things sure have changed. I worked at a restaurant in the 80's when I was in school. The restaurant opened at 11:00 am for lunch, but somebody always had to go in at 7:30 to do the prep work. The prep work involved things like dicing 20-30 pounds of onions and other vegetables. I am guessing that with the higher labor costs of today, many restaurant owners just order their veggies pre-cut.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Believe it or not, up until around the mid-80s, places like Taco Bell would often locally source their food supplies and make a lot of shit from scratch. Usually the only thing the franchise owners got from corporate were a bunch of seasoning packets.

    I don't think it's labor costs, so much as the same effects of scale on mass production.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    I was going to respond to this tripe, but you've already been abundantly spanked by the commenters.

    Thanks fellas, you're the reason I come here

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    ...asking for a little more...
    Always with the bullshit lefty qualifiers. "Reasonable", "common-sense", "fair share".

    They're afraid of saying it, but you know when the jackboots get laced up, "a little more" will 100% guaranteed be "everything his boss has, including his house, bank account, his wife and daughter, and, finally, his life."

    Dunno why people like OP need to toss out shit like "a little more" as if they're worried about bad press, when the last century and 100 million deaths already paint a pretty clear picture of where their envy politics are headed.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Oops, didn't mean that for you -- was replying to the snowflake above.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    By the way, "selfish" isn't a bad thing. It means taking care of yourself.

    The ones "asking for a little more" than they were worth weren't being selfish, they were just ignorant and/or too lazy to better themselves.

  • vek||

    Seriously... THE HARDEST?

    I worked at a fast food place, when I was a snot nosed teenager. It sucked, but it wasn't the worst thing I've ever done. Not physically OR mentally. My current work is a lot more mentally challenging, being that I actually have to think and stuff. And I've worked jobs that were orders of magnitude harder physically. They all paid better of course, but THAT'S HOW THE WORLD WORKS.

    Pussy ass whiner.

  • Sevo||

    Ordinary Person|2.15.19 @ 7:52AM|#
    "That's bullshit. The hardest job I ever had was working at a Smoothie King. I was poor, over worked and under paid."

    From the idiocy you post here, I'd say anything over $1.25/hour meant you were overpaid.
    Lefty bullshit whining, lefty bullshitter.

  • John C. Randolph||

    > the guy who owned that restaurant was banking on my misery.

    If that were true, he could just fire you and make even more money because you'd be even more miserable!

    The fact is, you were paid what your labor was worth at the time. If you were capable of earning more, you should have gotten a better job.


  • BigT||

    Progs are like parasites. If they are too aggressive and kill their hosts, they also will perish. But very few understand this.

    And, of course, they don't recognize the immorality of taking things from others by force.

    So, prog policies are both stupid and immoral.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Cortez aspires to be Ebola while someone like Cuomo is herpes.

  • Ray McKigney||


  • vek||


  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    @"Ordinary Person": Well they sure took your ass to the woodshed; nothing else to say, snowflake?

  • Ordinary Person||

    Maybe it's the way people think and I haven't given it my best effort but anyway as I take a dump this morning I find it's hard to buy the "there just isn't enough of everything to satisfy those who want it" line when I see people living in mansions driving new cars giving their pets more medical attention then alot of people get. They have pools that are too big for any practical use. They own 4 houses (that's me). Huge tracts of land. In other words there really is an extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of so very few people. I don't think it justifies taking anything but let's remember that life gets alot easier when that ball is rolling down the hill.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Yeah, I'd rather be pissed that some people have more than me than be happy with what I have. It's a way more healthy way to live.

  • JesseAz||

    Ordinary only looks at those who are better off. He never looks the other direction at this who are worse off than him... like most of the world. He comes across as just a jealous asshole. Bet if he was honest with us wed find out he donated zero to charity and does 0 hours of community service. Like most Democrats.

  • JesseAz||

    You could try educating yourself and see that taking 100% of the top 5% of wage earners income wouldnt pay for even 2 years of the green deal. But you keep working on those feels over facts you idiots prefer. Learning is hard work after all.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They own 4 houses (that's me).

    Barbie's Dream Home doesn't count as a house.

  • Brian||

    No one said there isn't enough of everything to satisfy those who want it.

    That being said, yes, actually, people frequently limit their desires and consumption by what external factors come into play. See: credit.

    We all can't own our own moon.

  • DarrenM||

    The easiest way for anyone to get everything he wants is to want less.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    You know who else has huge tracts of land?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    I was waiting for that. I'm seldom disappointed here.

  • vek||

    Not the Native Americans anymore!

  • Sevo||

    Nor the "native" any hunter-gatherer cultures.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    I remember being the only kid in class voting against the bell curve when the teacher asked how we prefer to graded. That's how I think of socialism... The people who don't study orbiting the kids who do so "everyone gets a fair share".

  • Rossami||

    Bell-curve grading isn't a very good analogy to economic opportunities & outcomes. The big advantage of bell-curve grading has nothing to do with the capabilities or effort of you and your fellow students - it has to do with the skill of the teacher at generating tests of the appropriate complexity.

    Making good tests is hard, especially for new teachers. It's very easy to write a test that turns out to be way too hard for the students. As the teacher, you are already (we hope) an expert in the field and have the advantage not only of the current module but also of knowing things the students haven't been taught yet. Beginning teachers commonly draft questions without recognizing their hidden assumptions of knowledge. If the grading of that bad test is on a rigid 90%=A, 80%=B... structure, you could see the majority of students fail the test not because of their own errors or effort but because of the teacher's error.

    Grading on a curve is intended to correct for the teacher's inherent errors in setting the degree of difficulty for the test. Economics, on the other hand, has external measurements. There is no "test maker" to make any mistakes about the degree of difficulty.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But grades, especially for college students, are a great mechanism to challenge snowflake socialist thinking. They live in a dream world as far as most material things, but "work" for scores and grades. A real test of their commitment to equality: ask them to pool their grades and then give everyone a C+.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Been there and was victimized by that in college, but the bell curve thing does cut at least two ways...

    If the tests are 'too hard,' they may not be accurately reflecting the material being taught IN the classes... questions more complex than the material delivered by the prof.

    Also, the questions COULD be representative of what's in the text and syllabus for the class, but the prof is so shitty that they're useless in their assigned function of helping convey that information TO the students.

    Been there, seen both. If you're in a good school with classmates preselected for brains and knowledge and the highest score on a test is 50%, well... ya gotta look deeper for the root cause..

  • vek||


    I get if one is completely putting in stuff they never taught... But if it's the material that was taught, and it was in the sections of the books the kids were supposed to read, and everybody does shitty... That means they're stupid or slackers. And deserve low grades.

    I don't think I got more than a couple Bs on any tests in school. Ever. And that was saying something in high school, because I partied a lot, and fucked off a TON. I literally took finals wasted one year on a bet. I got mostly As, and 2 Bs I think. We didn't use bullshit curve nonsense either. If I'd been in a class with curves, I probably would have received A+s on every single test I ever took, even though the Bs I got were hard earned by my fucking off.

    The truth is grading on a curve gives a class full of idiots grades above what they deserve, and classes full of geniuses below what they deserve. If you have objective standards, that is the only way you can really compare people across the board.

  • vek||

    Jesus dude.

    Perhaps the simplest way to thing about this is this: If nobody has excess money, nobody invests in new equipment, R&D, etc. The things that move the world forward. It is literally impossible to have a system moving forward where nobody has excess capital. Period.

    The more you limit that capital to be invested, the more you slow the advancement of society. Also, most people have shit tons of money because they earned it. So on a moral level, what right does anybody have to steal their shit they worked hard for?

    A billionaire does not make a poor person poor... A poor person makes themself poor by their choices. There is no excuse for not being middle-middle class on up in the USA. Anybody who says otherwise is a fucking retard or a liar.

  • Sevo||

    Ordinary Person|2.15.19 @ 7:48AM|#
    "Maybe it's the way people think and I haven't given it my best effort but anyway as I take a dump this morning I find it's hard to buy the "there just isn't enough of everything to satisfy those who want it" line..."

    No, your lack of understanding is simply a result of you imbecility. Work on that and come back for more info, you ignoramus.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Jealousy is a very ugly emotion. If you want what someone else has, earn it.


  • BigT||

    "there just isn't enough of everything to satisfy those who want it"

    How many people in the inner city would want a swimming pool? Plenty
    How many people would want several houses, maybe even one house? Plenty
    How many people would want an ocean front property? Plenty

    Sowell is 100% correct that there is a scarcity of everything that is valuable. And that's exactly how the market works to establish prices - more demand than supply (due to scarcity) drives up prices.

  • Ray McKigney||

    Exactly. If you don't allocate scarce resources by price, how else are you going to allocate them? By how "virtuous" someone is? By how "oppressed" someone is? By an essay contest? By random drawing? By being connected to the people in power?

  • JesseAz||

    Political clout like most socialist countries.

  • Bubba Jones||

    If it weren't scarce, it wouldn't be valuable. We'd take it for granted.

    Consider air. Zero value on earth. Considerable value on the moon.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Have you looked at prices for inflating balloons lately?

  • markm23||

    Inflating balloons with air is free. With helium is expensive, because helium is scarce on this planet.

  • vek||

    Yup. Although most people no longer have a scarcity of the BASIC things in life in the USA (Unless they blow it for themselves, as it's there for the taking), there really is not enough productive capacity in the world today for EVERYBODY to have that much shit. In 75 years even poor people MIGHT have 3,000 square foot houses with pools, assuming we stop trying to cram everybody into a handful of cities. But not today.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I promised not to pay attention to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the lefty Democratic Congresswoman from New York, given that her half-baked ideas do not merit serious debate.

    Actually, AOC has some brilliant ideas like #AbolishICE. We Koch / Reason libertarians need to realize that immigration is, by far, the most important issue. I'll gladly support politicians with imperfect views on taxes and the minimum wage, as long as they will advance our goal of open borders.

  • Cyto||

    I enjoy it when they pivot from blasting Trump for daring to question law enforcement to calling for an entire law enforcement agency to be outlawed because they are racist.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I always laugh when some statist proposes a new tax that he/she claims will simultaneously alter people's behavior and provide vast new revenue for some pet scheme. For instance, more than once I've heard people say that a big hike in the gasoline tax will simultaneously cause people to cut way back on buying gasoline and provide a big pile of money for mass transit or windmills or whatever. It's always funny to point out to them, ", if people don't buy as much gasoline your gas tax revenues will go down, not up..."

  • Cyto||

    AOC was all over the news this morning celebrating Amazon's cancellation of a huge headquarters campus near her district. It would have brought 25,000 amazon jobs to the area, and an estimated 27 billion in direct tax revenue over the next 20 years. Plus the carry-on effects of 25,000 more workers getting paid and working there. They were promised $3 billion in tax incentives to make the move.

    AOC celebrated the defeat, saying that they could better use that $3 billion to create a whole lot of jobs in the district.....



  • Mithrandir||

    Because government jobs are better than private sector jobs.


  • Austen Heller||

    Tech, high paying jobs, taxes etc are the wrong kind of jobs for Sandy. She has the best job now that she will ever, ever have. So sad. A government job is the worst kind of job.

  • Nardz||

    That might actually be the dumbest thing she's said yet.
    I'm impressed

  • Gilbert Martin||

    She really is an economic moron.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    She really should take some night classes in economics at the local community college.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Ha! Yeah, so where does that extra $3B come from now that Amazon is gone?

  • Austen Heller||

    So yeah, we can expect some big announcements from Cuomo etc on how the '$3B Amazon dividend' will be spent to improve the things that Sandy says need improving. We are breathless awaiting the PR from Albany. Funny thing though that Deblasio was in favour of Amazon.

  • Mickey Rat||

    And Cuomo is pushed that it ruined the crony scheme he cooked up. It something when the blackshirt and redshirt wings of the Democrats clash.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""AOC celebrated the defeat, saying that they could better use that $3 billion to create a whole lot of jobs in the district....."'

    I saw an article in the NY Times saying AOC doesn't know how tax breaks works pointing out that there is no $3 Billion dollars available to spend.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Much of her base consists of the unwilling to work contingent. They're seething that unemployment is so low and their funemployment subsidies are coming to an end.

  • DarrenM||

    I heard that this morning. I still have trouble believing anyone would be that stupid, but I'm an optimist.

  • BigT||

    As often as Reazun writers wail against tax incentives for stadia, factories, and any other businesses, it seems to me that AOC is merely going along with the libertarian perspective. I'm not so sure she is wrong. Government should be agnostic about tax incentives for particular businesses - otherwise they are choosing winners and losers, n'est ce pas?

  • BigT||

    If a state's government wants to compete with lower taxes, lower them for everyone.

    That's what Trump did when he lowered the business tax from 35 to 21%. His best accomplishment to date.

  • vek||

    Yup. I have no problem with states lowering taxes for everybody to draw in business. See the 8 (IIRC) states with no income tax.

    Depending on particulars even making a wide carve or for certain types of businesses MIGHT be acceptable. Like 20% reduced taxes for all e-commerce companies for 10 years or something. That would be targeting a certain class of businesses, which is kinda bullshit, but ALSO wouldn't be JUST Amazon.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The complaint is AOC's idiotic contention that the tax break was a pile of money sitting around that could be spent elsewhere. As much as Amazon didn't really need the break, that's the deal that was initially made, and the odds are high that the tax break would have been more than made up by city and state income taxes from the employees. This was AOC and her idiotic commie claque cutting their nose to spite their face.

  • vek||

    Ya know, as somebody who has lived in Seattle for a decade and a half... They may have dodged a bullet.

    NY is already fucked, so they probably should have just dove in head first. It's already doomed with high costs, and endless prog-tard yuppies anyway...

    But there IS such a thing as too much of a good thing. Some other cities would probably be hurt more by a 25,000 person campus than helped. I know almost nobody who thinks Seattle is actually a better place to live than it was 10-20 years ago... Because it just is not.

    Personally, I'm of the mind that these tech companies need to have more campuses in more major cities, and not just try to cram in metric fuck tons of people into a couple places. It would save them money by operating in lower cost areas, actually be beneficial to the cities without bringing the problems of TOO much price growth in housing etc too fast, and kinda spread the lovin' around a bit.

    All the arguments the tech giants have for concentrating in a few cities are utter bullocks if you think them through logically, it's really just that they're prog douches who only want to be in the trendy coastal cities... Nothing more. Amazon NOT choosing a big/sweet city in a conservative state proves there is no business logic going on.

    But this is a whole thing unto itself, so I will shut up now!

  • eyeroller||

    Some people become billionaires by using the government to give them other people's money and kill off their competitors.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    You're right! So let's fix that by building a bigger, more powerful government!

    Prog harder dude!

  • ||

    Bill Gates did exactly that.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    I don't believe that in the least. Bill Gates was a brilliant opportunist, and didn't sit on his hands as did others who've made a big score. Proof that a well-marketed mediocre product will provide great returns.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives make better parasites. They tend to keep their hosts alive. Conservatives are like long-lived vampires, progressives are more like a plague.

    Progressives kill their hosts then call them greedy and selfish for dying.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Parasites protect property rights and lift you out of poverty through the free market?

  • vek||

    I think what you mean to say is that the conservative mindset produces wealthy, stable, happy societies... But that aren't always tolerant of fucked up degenerate weirdos? If so, that's pretty much right.

    Like it or not, conservative ideology, with its stifling of aberrant behavior and all, makes REALLY strong societies. I used to not appreciate some of the social aspects, but as a proper adult I can actually accept that they DO make for a more functional world. I now question whether one can have a functional society and a free society... Or if you just have to have a happy medium of the two.

    Personally I think we need to bring back social shaming on lots of bad behaviors, but without laws to back it up. There are some social "ills" that aren't a big deal... Drinking or smoking weed cause more problems being illegal than being legal. However some other social issues, like incorrectly assuming women and men are the same, seem to cause FAR more problems than the so called good they create.

  • ||

    Conservatives enable progressives. I kinda get that. They're called Red Tories here or RINOs.

    Conservatives need to go back to their Calhoun, Burkean, Adams roots.

  • Jerryskids||

    "I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong."

    We actually are discussing whether the government should allow the existence of billionaires.

    No, she's discussing "a system" - capitalism. She wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Capitalism is a system for creating wealth, socialism is a system for distributing wealth.
    Capitalism is, at heart, based on the idea of self-ownership - the basic capital we possess is in our selves. Capitalism is about delayed gratification, not eating the seed corn, saving and investing for the future. Get an education, learn some job skills, look ahead to the future, keep an eye out for opportunities - even if it's not lucrative at the moment, it will be somewhere down the road.

    AOC and her ilk think like little children, wealth just falls from the sky and when mommy says she doesn't have the money for the shiny new toy they want they argue that mommy has a checkbook so who needs money. And they seriously do believe that individuals exist to serve the collective, any freedom or liberty you possess isn't because you were endowed by your creator with certain inalienable rights but merely a license granted by government. They are truly stupid and truly evil in their quest to enslave us all.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Nice concise summary of the differences

  • Mickey Rat||

    I would like her to explain what one has to do with the other. There were more people with ringworm before we had billionaires. If anything, the system that has made billionaires more common has made diseases like that less common, even if there is no direct connection between either phenomenon.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    "It's better to be morally right than factually right, you big capitalistic meanie!!"

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    No, she's discussing "a system" - capitalism. She wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    That's because she and her PeeOhhCee ilk like Omar and Tlaib are third-world trash with third-world commie pretensions.

  • vek||

    GOD. All I find myself wishing for is these idiots to start being actively violent so I can curb stomp some commies.

    I'm no crazy, so I won't do anything on my own, or even go try to start shit at protests etc... But if shit gets real, I would LOVE to sign up to go fuck up people like AOC. That's the only way to deal with her kind anyway, so it is probably coming sooner or later, as they don't seem to be giving up anytime soon. I still have a couple years before I'm beyond the age requirements for joining the army I believe, so these commies need to try for their revolution in the next couple years!

  • Mcgoo95||

    "But if shit gets real, I would LOVE to sign up to go fuck up people like AOC."

    I guess it shouldn't surprise me at this point that you have fantasies about beating up women, even if she is an idiot.

  • vek||

    I'm all about protecting women... I would never hurt a decent woman. Ever.

    But a commie is a commie. Should I grant ruthless wanna be mass murderers a special pass because they have to pee sitting down?

    These bitches wanna play tough with the big boys, go around running their mouths talking all tough... Well then they can play with the men. But that brings consequences, like getting your ass handed to you if your side loses.

    These feminists can't continue to try to have their cake and eat it too. They scream about how they want equal treatment... But anytime something comes up where women have historically had preferential treatment showered on them, like not physically kicking their asses when they're out of line, and all of a sudden they don't want to be treated the same!

    Well I say screw that. If they want equality, they can have equality ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE LINE.

    Women should have to register for selective service, it should be no more or less punishment for a man to beat up a woman than vice versa, all sexual preference in all laws should be eliminated. Then they can see how they like that shit. Women don't realize all the female privilege men gave to the fairer sex because they're weaker.

    The truth is they know inside they can't actually compete. Which is why they want laws favoring them, and holding down men.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Most "commies" are simply ignorant folk, told by the elite that we [the productive high earners] are the bad guys.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Ringworm is treated with OTC topical creams. This isn't some giant failure of the CDC.

  • John C. Randolph||

    And, it's trivially prevented by washing regularly.


  • Earth Skeptic||

    "I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong," as she recently told a reporter.

    And I believe that a system that allows people to procreate when they can't afford to pay for their own upkeep is wrong.

    /sarc (maybe)

  • vek||

    Why be sarcastic about that?

    There is NOTHING to be ashamed about in that statement.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    I agree. I'm old enough to remember when folks [that weren't devout Catholic!] waited until they could afford a child before creating one.

  • Sevo||

    Socialism cannot exist without capitalism.
    Capitalism can exist quite well without socialism.
    (dunno who gets the credit)

  • ||

    Good article.

    "Government is like rust. It never sleeps. Thinking of Ocasio-Cortez's statement, maybe it is more like ringworm: it keeps spreading unless one takes definitive steps to stop it."

    Well said.

    As for wealth moving away. You would think that would but a bee in their bonnet to make them reconsider. Instead, they'd likely double-down and find ways to make it illegal for rich people to move assets.

    Laugh but I wouldn't put it past them. Just like in their insane Green deal, the only people who will be allowed to fly are top people. Watch.

    And if they were serious people, they'd push for nuclear energy; not look to eliminate it.

    They're illiberal asshats of the worst kind: Pampered and parasitical.

  • ||

    Wow, so suddenly I'm supposed to feel sympathy for billionaires?

  • Sevo||

    Alan Turing|2.17.19 @ 10:52AM|#
    "Wow, so suddenly I'm supposed to feel sympathy for billionaires?"

    We'd all be better off it you learned to think, but I doubt there's much chance.

  • CGN||

    Ocasio is the typical Democrat. All problems are caused by rich people and solved by government. If you look at the facts, as I am SURE Cortez has never done, you will see that almost ALL economic problems can be blamed on governement malfeasance. The "Great Depressoin" was FULLY the federal government's fault. See if you don't believe me. Reduce government at ALL LEVELS by 50% and you will see our country BLOOM in a way it hasn't, and can't, as long as foolish government exists.

  • Salero21||

    I call her AOC = Always Obnoxious Cucaracha from the Bronx.

  • ||

    hi everyone i have a new idea for a students and moms.. give you a basic pay to your home .. and you have a good option to do more and earn more. check this site....

  • TJJ2000||

    The Irony of those that want to tax the Rich is that the poor recipients go right back to the rich (with even more money) to get services/products of the Rich thus doesn't nothing but raise inflation/prices.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    So it would take only 0.4% of a certain group to leave California to bankrupt it. Too bad that a good deal of those people have "wealth guilt".

  • Jacksmith|| - Generally, the error code 5010F might occur on the screen whenever any user attempts to renew the Mac operating system. Though, reinstalling the operating system can be one of the best ways of troubleshooting various system glitches and bugs such as removing the stubborn malware or attempting to make your computer to run fast. | McAfee My Account

  • a2plusb2||

    The article covers the economic "easy" part of the subject: That politicians are so cocaine-dependent on welfare spending that if they raise tax rates and taxes on the rich as high as they promise in their speeches, then revenue will plummet and they will have to backtrack.

    Not covered in the article are the numbers in the left-wing base who really do want to see billionaires strung from lamp-posts. How does that, mostly political, end of the subject work out?

  • BCarter||

    'thus turning her into a star'

    To who? 5-10% of the population?


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online