The Rise of the Plundering Class
By Randall Holcombe • Friday October 21, 2011 1:48 PM PDT • 10 Comments
The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area has edged out San Jose’s silicon valley as the highest-income metropolitan area in the United States, this story notes. People’s incomes can come from one of two sources. People can engage in productive activity and voluntary exchange, or they can forcibly take income from others. Silicon Valley gets its income the first way; Washington, D.C. the second. This most recent data shows that on average, plunder has now become more profitable than production.
Of course, not everyone in the Washington area is a plunderer. Some people work in the restaurants, gas stations, and shopping malls where the plunderers spend their money. The article also notes that Washington has one lawyer for every 12 residents—higher than any state—while California has one lawyer for every 243 residents.
As a side effect, even as the housing market struggles nation-wide, the Washington housing market saw rising prices last year, where the median sales price rose 8.1%. Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because “that’s where the money is.” Times have changed, and now people want to live in the Washington, D.C., area because that’s where the money is.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, California, Economics, Employment, Free Market, Politics, Taxation, The State, Unemployment 
We always read and hear about the Class struggle: The rich vs.the poor with the middle class being squeezed in between. However in our modern times,as in most times,there are really only 2 classes of people. One is the productive Economic Class that create their wealth and livelihoods through “hands off” market transactions. And then,on the other hand,there is the Political Class that lives off the wealth created by the Economic Class. The Economic Class is the host and the political class is the parasite. The reason why America and other predominately free market countries prospered in the past is because the Political Class was limited in size and function. In other words the host could accommodate a certain amount of parasites. Like in the human body there are sometimes good parasites. They help to digest food and prevent certain diseases among other useful things.The same thing is true in modern society. Among these functions would be police,fire protection,infrastructure,national defense etc. However when the balance of parasites becomes too large and feeds off too much of the host then that host will die. We often call this the war between the net taxpayer vs. the net tax consumer. To exemplify this H.L.Mencken once said “there are those that work for a living and then there are those that vote for a living.” Around 20 years ago a tipping point was reached,in America,in which the net tax consumers surpassed the net taxpayers in the make up of the American population. Among this Political Class would be government employees,retired government employees,welfare recipients,Medicare and Medicaid recipients Social Security recipients,food stamp recipients etc.etc.In other words the Political Class won the Class struggle over the Economic Class and settled their operations in the capitol of that class;Washington D.C. Thus we have the “Aristocracy of Pull” and the traders in political favors sitting atop their political kingdom. How long will this situation last? As long as there are enough hosts to feed off of. When that is gone the political class will have to be funded with borrowed money. When that runs out they will have to revert to money printing. And when the money is worthless because of over printing? Probably the guns and the gulags. I’m afraid to say this is Americas fate. A once great country destroyed by its own government.
Libertarian Jerry | Oct 21, 2011 | Reply
The most brief and concise analogy that I’ve had the good fortune to read this day :)
Allen Hill | Oct 22, 2011 | Reply
I started paying into Social Security as an eleven year old newspaper delivery boy in 1944. In those days, we were told we were paying for our own pensions if we lived long enough to collect. To label SS a mere “entitlement” along with true welfare programs like SSI, food stamps and medicaid is an insult to America’s working class. Many of these people have no other earned income.
rolland carpenter | Oct 24, 2011 | Reply
Right on the money, Rolland. I started paying into SS in 1960. It’s my money, and I want every penny back. The fact that the government already has spent my money does not dissuade me.
I think I may have been snookered a long time ago. Where is it written that a citizen who wants to work MUST have an SS number? Is that stated in the SS law? On another note, remember when it was forbidden to use an SS number as identification? Now people treat it like a phone number, and many institutions EXPECT you to provide it as your personal identifier. No wonder there’s so much identity theft.
Scott Haley | Oct 25, 2011 | Reply
I may have misstated above regarding work and the SS number. Let’s put it this way: where is it written that we MUST, under penalty of law, apply for a Social Security card with a personal identifying number? Is that required only IF one wishes to participate in the SS Program? We’ve always assumed that having an SS number is mandatory under any circumstances. Perhaps it isn’t. ???
Scott Haley | Oct 25, 2011 | Reply
To Roland and Scott......There has been much misunderstanding of what Social Security is and what Social Security recipients “paid into” or now receive in benefits. Let me briefly enlighten you. 1. Social Security is just a tax. To be more precise,an income tax levied on the employee and an excise tax levied on the employer. 2.There is no Social Security “fund” or “lock box.” As soon as the money comes in it is put in the General Fund and spent on anything Congress wants. This is done by taking the Social Security taxes and trading them for government bonds that can only be paid off with more taxes.The money paid out to Social Security recipients is a Benefit. These benefits can be done away with at any time by Congress and the benefit recipients will have no legal recourse to either continue getting checks or getting back the funds that they paid in. 3. Obtaining a Social Security number is voluntary,although it is very difficult to operate in today’s economic world without the number. In fact there are about 15 million Americans who either never have had or have rescinded their numbers. Again,being brief,Social Security is really a sophisticated chain letter that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. It is a bankrupt fraud that was perpetuated by dishonest politicians to gain votes. But with all that said,I think that all the people who paid into the system will receive all their benefits well into the future. The only problem is that because of our bankrupt,inflationary fiat money system the checks that are sent out won’t even buy a can of dog food.
Libertarian Jerry | Oct 25, 2011 | Reply
I find it hard to believe that a newspaper delivery boy in 1944 paid into Socialist Security. I know as a paperboy in the 1970′s that that was not the case for me.
It’s a socialist Ponzi scheme. Always was and always will be, regardless of what lies the gullible were told by ‘the authorities’.
The lie that you were putting your own money away that you would draw on one day was an obvious lie from the beginning, but who looks a gift horse in the mouth? The very first SS recipient, Ida May Fuller, paid a grand total of $24.75 and before she died she received payments totalling $22,888.92. Did she think she was just getting back the money she put in? http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#idamay
Social Security is as much a welfare program as food stamps.
Paul | Oct 26, 2011 | Reply
To Rolland and Scott,
Just to let you know, Social Security’s legality was primarily because of the Supreme Court’s decision that the program’s funds weren’t guaranteed to taxpayers who would later be recipients.
M.R. Orlowski | Oct 26, 2011 | Reply
The average SS recipient receives many times more money than they pay in. If they did not plan ahead whose fault is that? Protecting people from the consequences of their own bad choices is no better then bailing out to big to fail businesses.
derfel cadarn | Oct 26, 2011 | Reply
How much did you pay in? How much are you drawing out? They lied to you... the money’s not there.
Kyle | Oct 28, 2011 | Reply