Suppose the federal government confiscated 90 percent of the income of every private sector worker who earned more than the poverty level.
Then suppose the government used some of that confiscated money to pay government workers and the rest to provide benefits to people who do not work or earn less than the poverty level.
Would that be a transfer of wealth?
How would House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi answer that question?
She essentially argues that any diminution in the amount of money the government takes from Tom to give to Harry is in fact, a transfer of wealth from Harry to Tom.
The Pelosi Principle is this: If the government lets you keep your property, it is depriving someone else of it.
"The Republican bill is one of the largest transfers of wealth from working families to the richest people in our country — Robin Hood in reverse," Pelosi said at her press briefing last Thursday. (cnsnews.com)
After reading this several times, I was unable to process the stupidity of this kind of thinking.
People like this are protected from being institutionalized by their political clout and their billions in wealth that they obviously deprive from someone else, by their way of thinking.
I need help with this one.