I understand the desire of people who want to increase the tax base to help the needy. The vast majority of people are compassionate and would help folks in need. They believe that those suffering adverse circumstances would get on their own feet if only we gave them a bit of help. Therefore, they look to the government to confiscate the wealth of others to give to those in need.
Our first instinct is self-preservation. And no matter how much you want to help others, that desire ceases when it threatens your own livelihood.
California, likely the most liberal state in the nation, is broke. It misspent its money until there was nothing left, and now it has to find a way to recover the money misspent. There are only two ways to grow the bank account: either reduce your expenses, or increase your income. If you're the government, that means you either reduce services or you raise taxes. At this fork in the road, Californians are clear: cut spending. 73% want to cut spending. That's clearly a majority.
Let's say that they get their way in next Tuesday's ballot on budget initiatives and the clear decision is to cut spending. What happens to the needy?
Those who need a hand look to the strong for help, but when the strong aren't so strong, there's no one there. And the reason is that the "compassionate" spent so much money that the strong no longer feel strong enough to help.
The "compassionate" ended up hurting both groups - which actually isn't very compassionate at all. Because of their thirst for the money of those better off, the "compassionate" have now dried up the pool and there's nothing left to drink.
And until the strong feel strong again, those in need are left without help. That's just the fact of it.
Isn't it better to have a steady source of help, even if it's not enough to solve everyone's problems, than to have nothing at all? Shouldn't we as a society want a reliable resource? Shouldn't we seek to preserve that resource?
The truth is that the "compassionate" are not compassionate at all... they come in two flavors.
The first wants to look good by spending the money of others. Their altruism is built with the efforts of others.
The second group simply hates the "rich." Theirs is a scorched earth policy where everyone will have less, which makes it more equal. Fairness... that's their goal.
Neither is compassionate. One is selfish and the other is jealous, and both are frustrated by personal incompetence to achieve their ends on their own. The inevitable result of this is that no one will be helped for a time. Their intentions are not sustainable, and it's evidence of yet more incompetence that they couldn't see such a logical end.
Creativity requires a lot of energy, and even more to market it successfully and make it sustainable. Government is a parasite on that sustainable strength. If government likes the host body, it needs to maintain the health of the host. No one feeds long off a carcass, and no parasite is self-sustaining.