Anti-poverty Programs Lead Only to Even More Poverty

For decades now, politicians have tried to use government to eradicate poverty. Most use the power of government, i.e. tax the productive people and give the money to the poor and wham! - no more poor. And yet, each decade again shows how idiotic that idea is. Well, Great Britain will once again try to change history. New Prime Minister Gordon Brown will try his hand at fighting poverty. I wonder if there is a betting market on the percentage of people in poverty in 2015. (Gotta give Brown some time to screw up, right?)

Me, I am predicting history will once again make a fool of the politician and repeat itself. Albert Einstein has an oft repeated quote of use right here.

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

See, Brown is insane. The idea that someone can tax the productive people and expect productive people to continue as if nothing changed is moronic, even more so in today's global market. Should Brown increase taxes to help pay for his anti-poverty programs, how long would it take before Englishmen make the like the French and move to Switzerland? And that is the issue today, freedom of travel. Why would anyone rich enough to move not do so when the tax rate is excessive? France ran into that problem. A great number of their richest and most productive citizens fled the tax man, seeking shelter in a low-tax country. Now, does Brown expect something different? I mean, come on, with Ireland right next door with one of the lowest (if not the lowest, I can't remember) tax rate in the world, does Brown really expect rich Englishmen to stay in England if taxes go up?

Alas, who knows? All I can say for certain is that this plan is doomed to failure, just as it has been the last zillion times it has been thought up. If you would like to read more about Brown's brilliant plans, check out this article.

By the way, I am really getting tired of the anti-war advocates demanding action over Darfur. Sure, Brown could send British troops into Darfur, but why would that be acceptable and British troops in Iraq be bad? What logical explanation can be given? And for those trying the emotional reasoning, be warned. Should I put my mind to it, I am darn certain I could give one of the most impassioned speeches in favor of Iraq, using every emotion in my arsenal. (Then again, I only really know anger and would have to pretend compassion, but I am sure I could channel idiocy and make compassion work wonders for my argument, however illogical it may turn out to be.)