Policies of inequality never lead to equality

The never-ending saga of the Democrats continues...

Unequal treatment in the name of fairness and equality.  It's "fair" if the government seizes private capital and hands it over to those who didn't earn it — the wealthy should pay more since they have more, right?

Let's examine some approximate numbers.  In a high-tax state, the federal corporate rate is around 21%, the federal individual rate 37.6%, the state corporate tax 6%, and the individual state tax rate 10% — adding up to around 74.6%.  Effectively, the people and companies earning the money, producing the product, and taking all the risk would retain only around 23% of the profit.  Meanwhile, the government, which only hindered growth and earnings while taking no risk, would receive over 70% of the revenue through means of coercion via taxation — eventually redistributing this money to its causes and its mafia.

Now, that may seem acceptable and sensible to Democrats who like cronyism and corruption, but fiscal conservatives would disagree. Profitable businesses would flee to more welcoming and tax-friendly jurisdictions, in lieu of forfeiting their wealth.  This isn't cosmic, so the only plausible explanation is the apparent goal of the Democrats is to make as many Americans as possible dependent on the government dole — the modern-day plantation.

The same Democrat mouthpieces we hear yakking about "fairness" via wealth redistribution are those who are grossly wealthy.  The View co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg make $7 million and $8 million per year, respectively.  However, the average salary at Walt Disney Company — the conglomerate that owns ABS, which runs The View — is $90,000.  Behar and Goldberg are making nearly 78 times what the average worker makes, so it's only "fair" they take a pay cut right?  After all, don't we always hear journalists and Democrat pundits complain that "executives" make too much compared to average employees?

As a reference point, the average CEO in America makes under $200,000, which is less than 3% of what Goldberg makes, and she works a lot less than a company's chief executive officer.  Is that "fair"?  Goldberg touts her status as a victimized minority, and the importance of addressing "climate change" — from the comfort of one of her four homes, or aboard her private jet.

The rest of the mockingbird media and their Democrat cohorts complain about political spending, so why don't the media outlets lower the cost of advertising?  Or better yet, don't charge at all, and level the playing field at $0?  Wouldn't that be patriotic and "fair"?  On another note, can't we all recognize that it's unfair that grassroots candidates are up against powerhouse incumbents funded by Bloomberg, Soros, Zuckerberg, and their ilk?  Shouldn't we bar political donations from these mega-donors?

Is it any wonder why Congress, the media, and Biden have such low poll numbers and public trust?

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com