A village was supported by a family with a large diary farm. There were jobs and homes that were part of the farm and the requirements that supported the farm.
One of the keys to the success of the farms was that the farmer took good care of the cows. So they were very prolific, providing plenty of milk and cheese.
However, some of the people in the village grew jealous of the farmer and the cows because they could see that in some ways the cows were treated better than they were treated.
So the villagers conspired to take control of the farm by increasing many rules and regulations that governed the operation of the farm. Each of these was seen as appropriate in its own implementation. Some governed the management of farm wastes, some controlled feed, some the aesthetics of the pastures, some the transport of the products.
However, together the constraints of the rules limited the ability of the farmer to care for the cows. So gradually the cows became less productive. The quantity and quality of the milk and cheese declined. With the decline, there was less money earned to pay for some of the supporting services and the village grew poorer.
The villagers became agitated and demanded that the farmer increase the production of the cows. For a brief period production did increase, then it fell precipitously.
One of the villagers noted that, in their financial distress, the cows were worth far more when sold for slaughter than when they were producing milk and cheese. It took years to earn from milk what could be earned immediately through slaughter.
So the villagers forced the farmer to kill all the cows and then pocketed most of the sale as a windfall profits tax.
The villagers ate very well, cleaned up their parks and built a new school.
But, there was no more milk and cheese money.
The farmer and his family moved away with their now meager savings.
No one in the village knew how to run a diary farm. So the village continued to struggle into decline, blaming the irresponsible cows for their misery.
Moral of the story:1% of the people in the country provide 40% of all the tax revenue. They are the cows. Well treated they will be prolific. Well respected they will be generous. Well regarded they will be gracious.
Denigrated, demeaned and demonized, they will become defensive and cautious. Less prolific, less adventuresome, less generous.
If 40 million people in the lower 50 percent of wage earners were to stop contributing it would have no significant impact on tax revenue.
If 400 thousand people in the top 1% were to move to Barbados or Kazakhstan, tax revenue would drop 10%. If the remaining million of the top 1% were to back off a bit because they are weary, then tax revenue could drop another 20%.
This backing off also means that all the economic activity that comfortably supported the taxes would also drop precipitously. Meaning less investment and fewer jobs.
Means no way to support social security, medicare, education, healthcare and unemployment.
Over and over again in many societies we have proven that redistribution destroys initiative and innovation. The result is always decline and eventual poverty.
Less often we have proven that nurturing individual initiative and innovation drives growth and prosperity for all.
Message: Do not kill the cows. For that is the source of the milk that sustains our village. Redistribution kills the cow.