How I redistributed the wealth...
Subtitle: From Philosophy to Practice
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside.
The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside.
The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
posted by HeavyHanded at
8:42 PM
3 Comments:
This is awesome - I love it! Well done! :)
By
B J C, at 11:34 PM
I read your redistribution of wealth explanation but it seems to me they are not using applicable substitutes.
It's more like a rich lady with a wardrobe of mink coats, other furs, parkas, raincoats, jackets, long winter coats, etc. etc.
and a homeless man with no coat or a waiter with one coat.
Nobody is going to take from the waiter to give to the homeless man. That analogy doesn't apply. The waiter has no "wealth" to redistribute.
This is designed to make people at the waiter's level want to hold on to their money because this makes them think someone (Obama) wants to take it.
He doesn't. The "they" who are trying to make you think Obama wants to take your money are the rich people with the wealth.
They should "redistribute" "the wealth"! I am all for that. They get huge tax breaks, etc. (so much for the 'earning' part of the story). Taxing the rich more and taking more money from them instead of me is fine and has nothing to do with the rich lady working hard for her money (or earning it) like the waiter. She earned her money, yes, but they get proportionately unfair advantages. I think 20% of my pay is too much. Taking few coats from a rich lady is not the same as taking the one coat from a waiter and I am okay with that. You know if I was the rich lady I would be okay with it too. The rich are greedy. Sorry. You are taking to a dyed-in-the-wool bleeding heart liberal and there is no way I would buy into the fear that this misrepresentation is using to cast a bad light on Democrats who are trying to do something other than protect their own rich (Republicans).
By
Anonymous, at 11:34 AM
Oh, come on.
You have fallen for the "Democrats are good, and they are poor; and, the Republicans are bad, and they are rich" nonsense. (I am neither.)
In Obama's world you bring the middle class DOWN to the lower class and you have a two tier class system.
You have the rich - the elites - the politicians, (of which he is one), and then you have the peasant subjects.
Huge tax breaks (like the ones Ted Kennedy uses, i.e, offshore tax shelters) could easily be done away with if there was any serious interest by the elitist politicians to do so. (There's not).
That is the "fair way" if you are interested in "spreading the wealth."
I don't even know what you mean when you say (the rich lady) "earned her money, yes, but they get proportionately unfair advantages."
If you are talking about tax breaks again, then lets get rid of the tax breaks.
A straight 10 to 15% tax on everybody - no tax breaks - would be fair.
Believe me, the "rich lady" would be giving a lot more "coats away" than you and I.
Going after the lower middle class, the middle class, and the upper middle class is not the way to go.
Poor people do not produce jobs. It is ok to be successful. That is and always has been the American way. It is the land of opportunity.
Socialism has never worked.
By
HeavyHanded, at 6:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home