Michael Moore has a simple, elegant solution

Mary Katharine Ham analyzes Michael Moore's statement that "This country is not broke." Much less Wisconsin. Because the assets of America's billionaires are not THEIRS, they are a "national resource". The video is well-done. Some of the points which get simplified in the video are clarified in MKH's companion piece linked above:

Moore would argue, of course, that those jobs would simply be nationalized and “belong to all of us” after the wealth of their creators is sapped, but who exactly would have an incentive to make Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, or Oracle profitable if all of the money they made was considered a “national resource?"

Margaret Thatcher was right: "The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money". And the idea that the property of all private individuals belongs to the State is extremely dangerous (See video at 4 minutes). Even if a government does not go so far as to claim sovereignty over your time, the loss of property rights can affect the poor even more easily than the rich.

The Left tends to conflate money with power, so many of them think that Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates and the rest of the "400 little Mubaraks" are as oppressive in relationship to Americans as Mubarak was in relationship to the Egyptians. Like most tyrants, Mubarak stole from his people. But he was also dependent on foreign aid to fund his thefts. He was able to extort this money from the West because of his political power.

Weakening the importance of property rights makes everyone more vulnerable to the government. There are ways to moderate the somewhat aristocratic compensation packages in many big corporations without government intervention. Ironically, with the exception of intervention to prevent the growth of monopolies, government regulation tends to favor the formation of "too-big-to-fail" organizations which depend on special favors from the government to protect their market share.

Allahpundit comments about the video:

In a world of cheap demagogues, few come cheaper than this.

One question, though: When he says America isn’t broke, are we sure he’s referring to the budget? My sense of this guy isn’t that he wants to rob the rich blind to eliminate annual deficits and pay down the debt, it’s that he wants wealth transfer in its rawest form — literally confiscating bank accounts (or taxing them into oblivion) and carving up the principal for distribution to people below a certain income level. Not only would all of the entitlements that are destined to cripple the federal government sooner or later stay in place, but in Mooreworld, they’d probably be expanded. Yet somehow, in some way, that $1.3 trillion wealth transfer from Larry Ellison et al. to the poor that he has in mind would solve everything. What a magical elixir socialism is.

But why stop with the ultra-rich?

What would the United States gain if in fact the government did confiscate the wealth of the so-called rich and taxed at 100% all the income above $200,000.00 per household per year?

Using the latest statistics from the IRS, in 2004 there were 2.7 million adults with a net worth above $1.5 million. If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion -- and no one would again attempt to accumulate wealth. Assuming it was applied to the national debt (unlikely with the Left in charge as they would spend it) the national debt would only be reduced from $14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion.

Assuming Michael Moore and Company decide that $200,000.00 per year is sufficient for any household, then in 2008 (the latest IRS statistics) the 6.9 million filers that had adjusted gross income above $200,000.00 would have forfeited all their income above that ceiling to the government. The one-time gain to Washington D.C.: $221.0 Billion; but in the future no one would work long enough to earn more than $200,000.00 per year. Tax revenues in subsequent years would never increase unless tax rates are raised which are self-defeating and historically results in even lower tax receipts.

The long-term impact on the economy and the country would mirror that of the failed socialist nations throughout history.

Text of Moore's speech here. The Nation thinks Moore is on the right track. Reason doesn't, of course. After they tax the rich, who will they tax next? Remember that for many elite liberals, taxes are for the little people.