iB9Htw9465Lii7oYS2IZPTl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBXEejxNn4ZJNZ2ss5Ku7Cxt

The words came from Democratic Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota:

“The bottom line is we’re not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it.”

You couldn’t ask for a clearer portrayal of the ethics of plunder. “We” are the government and “we” are not broke because all the government needs to do is to take money from other people.

Ellison was advocating for his “Inclusive Prosperity Act.” He explained,

“The government has a right, the government and the people of the United States have a right to run the programs of the United States. Health, welfare, housing – all these things.”

The looting mechanism proposed in the “Inclusive Prosperity Act” is a sales tax on every sale/purchase of a stock, bond, or derivative. This would arguably be destructive to the economy, but I’ll leave that argument to the side.

Instead, let me ask, if everything turned out as rosy as Ellison pretends, would we be better off?

Ellison claims his new tax would rake in $300 billion a year. I have no idea how realistic his assumptions are. Is he assuming that there would be no reduction in sales of stocks, bonds, or derivatives? Whatever. Pretend he is right and we get $300 billion a year coming into the government.

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/