A Quote by Henry Hazlitt

Practically all government attempts to redistribute wealth and income tend to smother productive incentives and lead toward general impoverishment. — © Henry Hazlitt
Practically all government attempts to redistribute wealth and income tend to smother productive incentives and lead toward general impoverishment.
Bill Clinton is not a hypocrite. If a man believes that it is just and moral to redistribute wealth, there is nothing hypocritical in his attempts to redistribute some of that wealth to himself.
The best way to boost the economy is to redistribute wealth downward, as poorer people tend to spend a higher proportion of their income.
Rather than redistribute physician income as a way to subsidize an expansion of government control, Mr. Obama should fix the payment system to align incentives with improved care.
The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than to generate wealth and income.
What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers.
That's the problem with very high taxes - they don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute people.
It is less important to redistribute wealth than it is to redistribute opportunity.
Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do - redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God.
Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
If capital produces most of the economy's wealth and income is distributed on the basis of productive input, the individual can hardly reach his goal - an affluent level of income - solely by means of his labor.
There is this fashionable progressive notion that everything is so completely political that the idea we could have some sort of neutral legal process is practically utopian - because we all know that the more money you have, the more rights you can exercise in this society. But I don't think that you deal with income inequality by limiting the First Amendment rights of affluent people. I'd rather see people screw around with the tax code to redistribute wealth a little bit than screw around with the First Amendment.
Attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?
By the year 1982 the graduated income tax will have practically abolished major differences in wealth.
They wish for a general government of unity, as they see that the local legislatures must naturally and necessarily tend to retard the general government.
Would-be income guarantors ignore or despise the capitalistic system that makes their dreams dreamable and gives their redistribute-the-income proposals whatever plausibility they have.
The main purpose of Social Security is to redistribute wealth, to make an increasingly large number of Americans dependent on government for their basic needs in their retirement years.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!