Redistribution of wealth
Jeff Johnson was selected Republican candidate for office to replace Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton.
Mr. Johnson’s initial statements after the primary concerned how to help lower and middle income people without reducing incomes of high income people, referring to it as opposing a “redistribution of wealth.” His primary concern seems to be helping the wealthy. (At this point, none of them appear to need help.)
His statement unfortunately demonstrates either a belief in fantasies or a fundamental misunderstanding how wealth accumulates. Perhaps he “misspoke”!
Party Republicans imply great knowledge of business, and attempt to intimidate average people like us that it’s beyond our capability to understand, so it’s best we leave it up to them. “Daddy knows best.” They are condescending. Party Republicans would like to apply this business modeling to government. (Republican businesses crushed our economy 2007.)
In broad, simple terms, businesses spend money, to create a product. Hopefully it does well, and sells the product. After paying off expenses, it may have some money left (profit). It could reward its employees, or reward its owners, CEOs, etc. But every dollar taken by owners, etc., means one dollar less to reward employees (with better pay, etc.).
There are no other dollars. A dollar can’t be in two places at once. When employees are given less, it’s more dollars for owners. Owners may become rich. If employees are rewarded more, the owners, CEOs, etc., become less wealthy.
The wealthy holler and scream about this action or mechanism, labeling it “redistribution of wealth,” implying the poor are stealing from the rich.
What’s fair? Recent presidential candidate Mitt Romney has $250 million. He wants more. What can he do with $500 million he can’t do with $250 million? Eat double breakfasts?
If anyone in his employ is not paid well, that’s unconscionable.