Confiscate Americans' Wealth to Pay Government Workers?

Michael Moore and his fellow-travelers in the American version of the Socialist/Marxist cabal have picked up the mantle of defending public unionism in their demonstrations in Madison, Wisconsin and other state capitals.  They are vocally calling for more confiscation of the wealth of the rich to pay for the bloated incomes of government workers and openly stating that all wealth belongs to the state while their true motives are deliberately obfuscated. 

The age old premise and threadbare exhortation of class warfare has long found fertile ground among the lower classes but now they are being mouthed in support of one of the most advantaged groups in America today: public sector workers and their unions.

Even the most jaded of true-believers on the Left knows that confiscating the wealth and taxing what they consider to be unjust income would be self-defeating.  What could be done one time can never be repeated and there would be no one to create jobs or a higher standard of living for the overall citizenry, particularly those on the left side of the ruling class.  A cursory study of the experiences in the Soviet Union, Mao's Red China and Cuba among others reveals that government control of the means of production and wealth creation is a massive failure.

What would the United States gain if in fact the government did confiscate the wealth of the so-called rich and taxed at 100% all the income above $200,000.00 per household per year?

Using the latest statistics from the IRS, in 2004 there were 2.7 million adults with a net worth above $1.5 million.  If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion -- and no one would again attempt to accumulate wealth.  Assuming it was applied to the national debt (unlikely with the Left in charge as they would spend it) the national debt would only be reduced from$14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion.

Assuming Michael Moore & Company decide that $200,000.00 per year is sufficient for any household, then in 2008 (the latest IRS statistics) the 6.9 million filers that had adjusted gross income above $200,000.00 would have forfeited all their income above that ceiling to the government.  The one-time gain to Washington D.C.: $221.0 Billion; but in the future no one would work long enough to earn more than $200,000.00 per year.  Tax revenues in subsequent years would never increase unless tax rates are raised which are self-defeating and historically results in even lower tax receipts.

The long-term impact on the economy and the country would mirror that of the failed socialist nations throughout history.

Thus class warfare rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.  It is meant for the consumption of those gullible enough to support the ascendancy of the Socialist/Marxists into positions of power.  The fact that it is used in conjunction with the so-called plight of the highly paid unionized government worker reveals: 1) a dearth of viable arguments to justify public sector unions; and 2) most importantly, the loss of a major source of funding for the Left and their organizations.

For many on the Left the real fear is that for the first times in their lives they would have to find a job in the private sector they so vilify.

Therefore the real interest of these radicals is not the so-called denial of the "right" to collective bargaining but that by eliminating compulsory union dues (which Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana among others have or are doing) a major source of funding for their groups will be eliminated.  The leaders of these unions are in bed with the far-left.  For example the National Education Association, the largest national teachers union, contributed over $65 million of union dues as gifts and grants to a variety of liberal and left-wing groups in their fiscal year ending in 2004.

That process is repeated by all of the major public employee unions amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and gifts over the past five years.  Were compulsory dues to be eliminated then a major source of funding would dry up for the Left.  When combined with the take-over of the House of Representatives by the conservative wing of the Republican Party and the inevitable spending cuts, which would immediately impact many of these organizations, reality has reared its ugly head.  The money the Left needs to support itself may well be drastically reduced and with it their clout and influence.

There is an old adage: "always follow the money."  The Left, despite their protestations that they always have the best interests of the people at heart, have only their own interests at heart.  It is their individual income stream and their massive egos which must be fed, and there is not enough private funding to do so.  Therefore it must come from the public coffers whether directly from government programs or indirectly through compulsory public sector union dues.

It has taken a national and various state financial crises to pull back the curtain so the American public can view the corruption and greed in the full light of day.   The Left, their bought politicians, their sycophants in the media and entrenched union bosses will not go gently into that good night; but no longer will they operate with such impunity as their influence wanes and funds dry-up.
If you experience technical problems, please write to