Wealth Re-Distribution? Here's what to expect

     Wealth distribution; sounds like a good plan right?  What would it take to make everyone in America equal? We all want equality right, and we sure want to "stick-it" to those dirty rich people right? So what are we going to have to do to make that happen? And what can you look forward to if it does?

     According to Wikipedia the average (mean) income in the United States is $60,528.  This is a pretty good income level for many people in fact I'm very close to this level right now.  In my past, my wife and I strived to make it on a lot less and we were happy but we always strived to make a little more so our life would be a little better.  But $60K a year is pretty good right? To some that would be a huge income increase but for other that would be a huge income decrease it's all checks and balances right? If we take that $60K and expand it to a window of $50K to $70K it would be reasonable to assume that this would still keep everyone across the country fairly equal; taking into consideration differences in cost of living due to shipping costs this would be a very fair window for a mean point. So where does this put every one? How many people would get a pay raise and how many a decrease? Well, using the same Wikipedia site, 22.54% of American households are in this bracket so there would be any change for these folks.  24.88% of American households are below this bracket so they would get in increase with 6.76% almost doubling their household income.  That's pretty good right, I mean, we all want people to increase their income; we all want to help people "get a leg up", right?  But did you notice the missing figure?  That's right, 52.58% of American households will take a pay cut in order to make this happen.  The number don't lie, over half of American households will have to give up a portion of their hard earned money to make true wealth distribution.  Is this where we want to go?

     In all societies there are a group of folks that call themselves the "have-nots".  Those folks that look at people more wealthy than them as evil just because they have more.  They look at the wealthy and wonder why they don't give some of their money to them so they can get ahead.  The problem is they don't look very far ahead, they look at all income levels and feel that everyone "owes" them something since they are the "have-nots". Before I get too far I have to say that there are a lot of very hard workers in those lower income lever that don't have their hand out and are trying to work out of that level but they are a very quiet majority.  The screaming minority in those lower levels are the ones creating this societal class war.  But what if they get what they want?  Would they be happy with $60K a year?

     One of the fallacies of wealth equality is that it creates a cap in income.  Once people get to the average level than every above that goes to some one else.  If people know that once they get to a certain income level what incentive do they have to get there?  Why should they work hard to that point when they know that they're not going to get any farther.  In reality they won't even have to worry about that, they will already be there since the government made sure of that by giving them someone else money?  Do you see a problem here?  Lack of incentive, a salary cap; how does this promote growth?  

     Here's another side of this problem; to get this started the government will have to take away money from 52.58% of the households.  So 52.58% of the people are going to loose money.  Do you think they're going to roll-over and say "ok, no problem, here you go mister president".  Really, do you think so?  It may be tough at first but I'm sure Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates are true patriots and won't any problems giving up 99% of their money.

     Let's look at military pay scales; you all know I'm a military guy so what would this do to them?  When someone starts in the military their income level is relatively low. As people become more proficient in their job they get promoted which always means more income but also means more responsibility.  I recruit with a few weeks in sure doesn't have the same experience level as a general with years and years of service so we pay those generals more as a way of recognizing that fact.  Under wealth equality that recruit would make the same amount of money as the general with a whole lot less responsibility, so why should he try to move up? Wouldn't human nature and common sense take over to tell the recruit there no reason to move up?  At some point in time pride in wanting to advance is stripped  by wealth re-distribution.  One would ask why someone would even join the military, why not just stay home and collect our $60K.  No one said you had to work to get it.

     Wealth re-distribution is a scheme that will destroy America as we know it.  It will kill worker incentive, stifle growth, and ruin our economy.  In the onset, anarchy would ensue as over 50% of Americans would have their money stripped from them which would probably create massive immigration to other countries.  Total decimation of our military forces would be experienced which would eventually lead to the destruction of the United States as we know it.  Those of us that would try to fight it would most likely be left with nothing.  Our country we are so proud of, the country we fought and died for would be gone just because a few people were too lazy to get ahead on their own.
     I know these ideas are pretty far fetched but they could become reality if they're not stopped.  How do we stop them though once they start?  I don't know how they will stop but I know where they will stop.  They will still in the ballot box.  People don't want this type of America and will stop it by voting in people who will stop this slippery slope.  We'd better stop it quick though before things get too bad; after all, who wants to be President when it only pay's $60K a year?