Procinctu rebuttal | Nick Hanauer’s TED speech | Why tax the rich?

  • Posted May 28, 2012

There has been quite a bit of fanfare over Nick Hanauer’s speech at the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference this past March. Initially, TED did not post the video stating it was partisan and that they had better ones than it. But a campaign was launched saying that TED was censoring the video due to its topic of ‘income inequality’ and ‘tax increases.’ The video has since been posted on YouTube.

 In it, Nick Hanauer makes the case for more taxes on the rich. Nick is himself in the company of the rich and has been involved in the start-up of dozens of businesses. One of those businesses was Amazon. Though Amazon’s revenue is over $48 billion dollars more than Procinctu’s, we are still going to provide the counter point to this tax the rich lobby. Nick makes a few points, but overall, his push to levy more taxes on the rich is destructive.

 

In the video, Nick question’s the belief that  “If taxes on the rich goes up, job creation will go down.”  He says that this idea is dead wrong.

 

He also says that  “When business people take credit for making jobs, its a little bit like squirrels taking credit for evolution. It’s actually the other way around.”

 

This is a flawed viewpoint. Sure we know that a business needs its customer to succeed, and that the more a customer buys, the more the business can grow. But it is the businessman who needs to take the risk in order to start the company in the first place. Even after the business is established, it is the businessman who could lose everything if the simplest of mistakes are made. So unless the businessman in question is one of the government’s cronies, the squirrel metaphor is way off.

 

 

Nick goes on to point out that  “significant privileges have come to people like me, capitalists, for being perceived as job creators at the center of the economic universe. And the language and metaphors we use to defend the current economic and social arrangement is telling. Its a small jump from job creator to the Creator. This language was not chosen by accident.”

 

If someone has made riches through honest means, there is no problem with that. It probably took many risks, much work, sleepless nights, and family stress to achieve their success. Any amount of wealth they attained is A.O.K. so long as it was justly earned.

 

Now if we want to make an issue out of the “Too Big to Fail” gang, then that’s a whole different issue. We know that certain CEO’s of the Big Banks have been bailed out by the taxpayer. We know that certain friends of the Administration (Solyndra) have filed bankruptcy shortly after receiving guaranteed loans of $535 million. We know that other guaranteed loans have been given out where the market otherwise would not lend. Yes, we know that the government has stolen from the middle class to give to their cronies in high places.

 

Nick however, doesn’t even mention those issues. He instead just speaks of the taxes on the rich.

He then goes on:  “we’ve had it backwards for the last 30 years, rich people like me don’t create jobs, jobs are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between customers and businesses. And when the middle class thrives, businesses grow, and hire, and owners profit.”

 

That’s understandable. Sure, rich business owners need consumers the same as consumers need rich business owners. Nothing wrong there, but the conclusion to his whole point of view is where his motive really starts to show. His big build up during the speech led to this next statement, questionable at best, dangerous at worst.

 

Nick:  “Thats why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all, is such a fantastic deal for the middle class and the rich.”

 

WHAT?!

 

Of all the things we could possible do, giving MORE money and resources to the government is the worst. Food Stamps (SNAP), Welfare (TANF), Medicare, Medicaid, and social security have done nothing but implement modern day slavery. We have created a whole class of people totally dependent on the federal government and literally unable to care for themselves. Some of these people even choose not to better themselves out of fear of losing their ‘benefits.’ Yet, others commit fraud and sell their ‘benefits’ for cash and further milk the system. So why tax the rich more?

 

Giving more money to the government to perpetrate this evil is destructive. It would be the same as banging your head against the wall always thinking that the next time it will feel good. Now that’s a metaphor we can agree with.

 

If you really want to change policy, Nick, then you first need to clean up the corruption. You could tax ‘rich’ people at 90%, yet it won’t matter as long as the money is spent by corrupt people. Besides, all it would accomplish anyway is a further enslavement. So why tax the rich more?

 

CHANGE THE ARGUMENT

 

Nick should not be lobbying for more taxes to be paid to the government. Instead, he should be lobbying to lower the taxes paid by everyone. Let the middle class keep their hard earned money.

 

This is economics 101. Consider the US government as a business. If such an entity was so irresponsible that it racked up $15 trillion debt, it would be out of business. Committing to over $100 trillion in obligations would put it out of business as well. And yes, even being part of a system that created $1.2 quadrillion in derivatives would put it out of business. So why should that entity get more funds to squander? Why tax the rich more?

 

Instead, this increase of taxes actually harm the entire economy. Instead of the (honest) ‘rich’ reinvesting in their business or buying a yacht or something, the government takes those funds to spend it on something that obviously the market doesn’t warrant. That means the middle class yacht manufacturer is hurt because less yachts are made. Conversely, whatever the government diverts the money to is given special treatment. Though the market would not otherwise pay for that product or service, it essentially takes the resources that the yacht maker should have had. The corrupt make out like bandits and the honest get burned.

 

More taxes are not the answer. Weeding out the corruption and letting people learn responsibility needs to be done first. Otherwise, the nation’s resources will be further squandered. So why tax the rich more?

 

 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU

 

Don’t be jealous of what others have. Use what they have as motivation to attain it yourself, through honest means of course. This is where the “Occupiers” miss the mark. They spend so much energy ‘protesting,’ but virtually no energy on bettering their own situation. Every minute they spend in a park sitting around is one less minute they are learning a skill to implement in their life. It’s sad, really.

 

Use your energy for good, not evil. Especially if you focus on adding value to the lives of others. You will find that it will come back to you.

 

 

In Nick’s case, instead of lobbying to turn more money over to the irresponsible crooked politicians and bureaucrats, there is a much better option. Why not get your like-minded ‘fat-cats’ together and form your own Empowerment Centers. Not being subject to the waste and fraud of the federal government, imagine the resources that would reach those who truly need it. You could find the best coordinators throughout the land and set up different chapters in every state. This gigantic network of self-empowerment and skill-teaching centers for the underprivileged would truly be beneficial, right?

 

Just think of the jobs Nick & friends would create, yes, Nick & friends, in building these centers. Think of the well meaning individuals who could administer the services. Think of the ‘high on life’ all involved would get as a result of helping people out of poverty.

 

The government just throwing them a bone is only a placation. However, for a group of ‘rich’ venture capitalists to invest in them with life-changing training?….Priceless.

 

Though Nick’s TED speech isn’t as bad as Bill Gates’ population control TED speech, it’s still pretty bad.

 

Disclaimer: The author’s net worth is just under $100,000… in DEBT….that’s somewhere near $1 billion less than Nick. Also, much of this website was paid for with credit. It is a risk, better than sitting in a park.

 

Send this to friend