Social Issues and Our Economic Future

eHezi Campaign Trail, Governance, History, International, National, Political Analysis, Politics, SocioEconomics 2 Comments

Laura Weir, Editor and Columnist.

LONG ISLANY, NY — November 16, 2020 — Social issues are too often used to separate us from our money at the polls. And while decent people are inclined to support such issues, they often don’t recognize that they have voted away their financial futures.


There is reason to be suspicious when words like racism, sexism, homophobia, and privilege are suddenly bandied about in our culture, especially during an election year. These social issues are riders on the backs of progressive political candidates who want to take more of our money. This is not to say that Republican politicians don’t do the same thing, touting their own social agendas, like abortion and anti-gay marriage, as a means to a political end. Yet Republicans are far less likely to support economic redistribution policies that can be harmful to our nation’s future, while today’s Democratic Party platform is beginning to resemble European-style socialism.  


Taxing the rich sounds fine if you’re not rich. But the notion of what rich actually is has been shifting in recent years. These days simply having a job, a home, and some money set aside is considered a bit too comfortable, or even privileged.


Make no mistake. Progressives in government are not only looking to tax the rich. They are also targeting “savers.” Middle and working class people who sacrifice luxuries and instead choose to save their money had better be wary of certain politicians and political platforms that might sound nice, but are intentionally lacking in detail, leaving only those with intellectual curiosity to read the fine print.


Everyone wants equal justice for all, equal treatment, and equal opportunity. These tenets of America were established long ago and need not be ratified in an election booth. Yet many politicians want us to believe that the only way to social justice in America today is at the polls. And social justice too often translates to “economic justice.”


With such attitudes taking hold in America, your retirement account, or even your savings account at your local bank, could soon be considered “privilege” and could be subject to the needs of the collective.


One proposal from far left-leaning Democrats is for the Government to take over retirement accounts (401k and others) for the funding of various societal needs, namely Basic Universal Income for All, which was proposed by a recent Presidential candidate and is now being tested in California. Here’s how a Government takeover of individual retirement accounts would work:


The Government would seize all 401k and other personal retirement accounts and convert them to government annuities. Then, upon your retirement, the Government would ration you your own money as it sees fit, all the while redistributing your earned savings during your working years to “those in need.”


Another plan, the Biden plan, is to institute a flat tax on such retirement accounts. This would have the effect of equalizing pre-tax savings on the part of employees who contribute to 401k or other Deferred Compensation accounts at work. Those earning more and contributing the same amount of money each pay period as those earning less would get the same tax break as the lower paid employee.


The Kamala Harris plan to fund Universal Healthcare (Medicare for All) is to tax all trades on personal accounts such as Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other publicly traded savings accounts. Each time you move invested money, which has already been taxed, you will pay an additional .02 percent tax. Multiple taxation for the public good. In addition to that, yet another recent proposal seeks to tax unrealized stock market gains. In other words, an annual tax on money you have yet to receive. With this it would not be far-fetched to imagine a future tax on credit card limits awarded to those with high credit scores.


Yet another plan Democrats in a Biden Administration could soon embrace, is to impose a tax on those who work from home. This, dubbed the “privilege tax,” was recently proposed by Deutsche Bank as a way to ease the economic burdens caused by the Coronavirus pandemic lockdowns. However, they recommend the program continue even after the pandemic is over. This, they say, even post-pandemic, will help with redistribution of wealth to those in need. Once a tax, always a tax. After all, they say, people who can work from home are saving money by doing so, as they are not eating out, paying for public transportation, and buying work clothes. This is seen as justification for confiscating these personal “savings” and redistributing them to others.


These are only some of the proposals by today’s aggressively progressive politicians, many of who are now wedging their way into a Biden Administration to foist their agendas onto a populace that rejected their candidacies at the polls. Their agenda is to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” to use the words of former President Barrack Obama. This fundamental change will affect all of us financially, but will be devastating for many Americans as social engineers attempt to arrange all the runners at the finish line. In a socialist regime, far fewer of us will get to break the tape.


Helping the needy is fundamental in a decent and civilized society. But far-left progressive policies are not the answer. Government-mandated redistribution of wealth is not at all decent. It wouldn’t just punish the wealthy, but could deliver a crushing and insulting blow to the middle class, those of us who have tried to get ahead by being financially responsible. It makes us all poorer, and many of us resentful, removing the incentive to exercise such fiscal responsibility. This demoralizing of people will lead to a drying of the economic well. And as Margaret Thatcher once put it, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”      


eHeziSocial Issues and Our Economic Future

Comments 2

    1. To you they are defined as crackpots while others define them as lucid. No need to be so thin-skinned. They each may express a different perspective than yours. It is that simple. Kindly, Hezi

Leave a Reply

This comment will be displayed anonymously. Your name and email address will not be published.

Comments that are off topic will be removed. If you want a topic to be covered, email me at:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.