Select Page

Do We Need Billionaires? The Ocasio-Cortez Question.

Do We Need Billionaires? The Ocasio-Cortez Question.

Does America need billionaires, is there something immoral about having that type of money, and if there is, why is that?

We have seen the left trying to push the need to tax our billionaires at a 70% tax rate, the same argument that was heard in the echoes of time from the Bolsheviks is now being spread around in the halls of congress, but how has seizing the wealth and redistributing it worked out in the past?

Prior to WW1, the rise of Bolshevism brought about the idea of socialism or communism, although the correct term for what they were doing was a purely socialist government.

At that time you had a very corrupt Czarist system where nobles controlled the money, peasants were told their plight would not change, the people grew tired of the ruling class taking all while giving nothing to the people, they revolted, but is this the same situation as we have here?

The tech age brought about a whole new class of ultra-wealthy, but they did not get their wealth by taking advantage of the poor, they earned it from innovation they were part of creating, with this came the need, thus wealth was passed from the consumer willingly to them, they did not take it from an unwilling people.

But this does not matter to the socialist left, which is what the left has become, they only see that these ultra wealthy have money, lots of it, they don’t care that they are putting billions into charity, research, expansion, thus opening the avenue for hundreds of thousands to share the wealth as well, all they know is the poor don’t have it, the poor keep them in power, the one way to appeal to the poor is to give them some of this money, thus they ensure they have their votes in the future.

You can bring this to a more personal level. I have a brother that is a multimillionaire, so do I think I have a right to his money because he has more than I? Do I have a right to dictate whom he should give his money to or how he should spend it?

Dare I say that if I tried to tell him how to do this, our relationship might not do very well, he would be angry; it is his money, not mine, I have no authority over it. He has helped me in the past, I am very thankful for it, although I know he had the money to spare, I am thankful that he helped me at all.

I in turn have a brother that is worse off then I, he nor I am not willing to stay at this station in life forever, so he and I have invested into 0censor, we also are putting our resources into building a social network site, we are tired of the censorship we see coming from FaceBook and Twitter, feel it is time to offer a alternative. This cost money, my brother has little of it, so I invest the lionshare, also have helped him out when he needs it.

Now he has little, I as well, but if we are investing our little resources and we one day after years of having little or nothing now have wealth, so we then are forced to give it away to people that never risked anything, just because we have it and they don’t.

I would no more then I have a right to dictate to my brother who has more than I how to spend his money now. Do I have a right to dictate that he invest into what I am working on? Of course not, if he sees that it is an excellent adventure, and my other brother and I are in agreement that we could use his investment, then we could bring him in, but he is under no obligation to do so.

But this is not what the left sees. They see my brother has to have more, if we had a brother that refused to work, and we don’t, then we in their way of thinking would have a right to take a portion of my brothers wealth, give the majority of it to my brother that is the poorest, then give to the next one and so on until we all share the same wealth.

The problem with this is if we did this, what motivation would my one brother have to bring in wealth, he knows if he earns it, we are going to take it from him, or worse, why should he stick around and deal with it, he cuts us all of, moves away, where he moves to no one will demand he give them his money, although they will be thankful for what he can help with.

This is the problem with this type of thinking. What do you think happens when the super-rich suddenly see their wealth taken from them? Do you think they are going to invite you in and ask if you can take more?

No, they unlike us have the means to move to another country, find a nation that does not tax at 70%, move the business there, then not only are they not being stripped of much of their wealth, they are also stripping the tens of thousands they were aiding in earning wealth themselves from having access to this.

The question also has to be asked, what happens after you take from the ultra wealthy, what then? We saw the bread lines in Communist Russia, Europe, Cuba where people who had little, were given a short time lift from what was taken from the rich, but after that runs out they are back to having little, but now they have even less, for the wealthy are not hiring in people, money from them is not trickling down to the poor.

We today see a great example of this with Venezuela, this is right in our own back-yard, we have the whole country up in protests, the people are angry, they are tired of having nothing, and nothing is being done about it. After the promise by Hugo Chávez that he would redistribute wealth, would make sure that all were equal, and he did this, he now made all but the rulers equally dirt poor, even buying such basic commodities as toilet paper is near impossible, the people found they are equal in the fact they have nothing.

It seems every ten years we get a person like Ocasio-Cortez someplace in the world, they look at socialism as such a great deal, but what they never tell the people is that no nation that has ever dipped into true socialism has ever succeeded, they soon are lost in chaos and civil war. When you confront people like this with this fact, their answer is the same, just like Cornel West, they say, “You are right, it has failed, but we will make it work!”

Sadly they never learn from history, it is the market that makes economies thrive, it is the ultra wealthy in their quest to acquire more wealth who invest into markets, thus granting others access to some of this wealth as they seek to expand their own.

Do we need billionaires? I think so, without the drive to earn money, most of these people are greedy, but that is not a bad thing, it drives them to make more, they, in turn, need to bring in people to aid them in their quest, the people they bring in, and the people under them then earn wealth assisting in this adventure. Thus the cycle turns over and over in the capitalistic markets we have.

In the end it is a question of theft, if you want something someone else has, and you use legislation to take it from them, is it any less theft then going in and stealing it yourself? One you are breaking the law, the other way you are using a means to justify what you are doing. I am all for taxes, more so a flat tax such as a universal sales tax, the ultra wealthy will pay more, they spend far more, but everyone pitches in, this is not the socialist way. Do we need billionaires, you bet we do, stealing from them is not going to make them want to stay here.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.