Ending Income Inequality?

Pages: 1 2

Benefiting from a hint from an article titled “Is Harry Potter Making You Poorer?”, written by my colleague Dr. John Goodman, president of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, I’ve come up with an explanation and a way to end income inequality in America, possibly around the world. Joanne Rowling was a welfare mother in Edinburgh, Scotland. All that has changed. As the writer of the “Harry Potter” novels, having a net worth of $1 billion, she is the world’s wealthiest author. More importantly, she’s one of those dastardly 1-percenters condemned by the Occupy Wall Streeters and other leftists.

How did Rowling become so wealthy and unequal to the rest of us? The entire blame for this social injustice lies at the feet of the world’s children and their enabling parents. Rowling’s wealth is a direct result of more than 500 million “Harry Potter” book sales and movie receipts grossing more than $5 billion. In other words, the millions of “99-percenters” who individually plunk down $8 or $9 to attend a “Harry Potter” movie, $15 to buy a “Harry Potter” novel or $30 to buy a “Harry Potter” Blu-ray Disc are directly responsible for contributing to income inequality and wealth concentration that economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says “is incompatible with real democracy.” In other words, Rowling is not responsible for income inequality; it’s the people who purchase her works.

We just can’t blame the children for the unfairness of income inequality. Look at how Wal-Mart Stores generated wealth for the Walton family of Christy ($25 billion), Jim ($21 billion), Alice ($21 billion) and Robson ($21 billion). The Walton family’s wealth is not a result of ill-gotten gains, but the result of Wal-Mart’s revenue, $422 billion in 2010. The blame for this unjust concentration of wealth rests with those hundreds of millions of shoppers worldwide who voluntarily enter Wal-Mart premises and leave dollars, pounds and pesos.

Basketball great LeBron James plays forward for the Miami Heat and earns $43 million for doing so.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://sickrantorum.com KenLayIsAlive

    Look, no one holds it against authors or artists or any on who produces a product that people want, that they benefit from their productivity. But realize that Rowling didn't write the Harry Potter books so she can make $1B. LeBron doesn't play for the $43M. These people love what they do, and would do it if it meant Rowling only was worth $750M, and LeBron only made $30M. If taxes were somewhat higher, productive people would not cease being productive – except, perhaps, that segment of society that produces little, and can be moved only on the basis of bald-faced greed.

    The satire of this article is misplaced. The government is responsible for income inequality. They write the laws which determine the rules of the game which puts money in some people's pockets and takes it out of others. Krugman is absolutely right. When the rules determine that a tiny segment of the population controls all the wealth and all the political power in a nation, it is no longer a democracy.

    We're not talking about taking everything from productive people. We are talking about somewhat evening out the wealth distribution in this country to where we were even thirty years ago – when we didn't have the economic and political problems we face today. The very rich can either go along with a reasonable attempt to make this country more politically and economically fair, or face more protests and a steadily deteriorating country.

  • Ageofreason

    There is so much wrong with what you say in just three paragraphs that it's difficult to know where to start in rebuttal. Clearly your underlying and guiding principles are so flawed that it leads your thought all over the place. Who are you to say how much money someone should make? You certainly would not like it if someone pointed a gun at your head and said you make too much money, and others need it more than you do. In plain language, that is robbery. Your pontification on motives is irrelevant, and a red herring.

    The earnings of the wealthy are productive; they are not stuffed into a sock or a mattress. The wealth is invested and helps to generate more wealth for many more people. Whatever they spend goes into the pockets of those who sell them goods and services. Furthermore, wealth is not a pot from which wealth is taken by a few, leaving less for everyone else. Cont.

  • Ageofreason

    It is excessive taxation and regulation that kill the middle class, by sucking away its wealth, and ability to accumulate capital to invest to generate more wealth, to generate jobs, to generate generalized prosperity. You want an economically fair country? Reduce taxes; do not increase them. You want a politically fair country? Demand in no uncertain terms that politicians stop spending on entitlement programs: medicare, welfare, food stamps, etc, etc, etc. Also, let the banks assume the risks of investment in mortgages free of government interference. And if the banks fail, then the banks fail. Yes, people will be hurt financially, but we could call it short term pain for long-term gain.