Thomas Sowell Quotes

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage.

The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources, and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot.

Practically all government attempts to redistribute wealth and income tend to smother productive incentives and lead toward general impoverishment.

I think there are people in this Congress who actually believe that government does not have a benign role in the lives of the people, except as an engine to redistribute the wealth of the Nation upwards.

Spreading the wealth punishes success while setting America on course for a greater dependency on government.

As the economy faces such difficulties, more tough questions need to be asked about what the Tories would do if elected. Their ideology of free markets and small government needs challenging. That has to be part of our job.

To Republicans, I humbly suggest that we make it possible for Democrats to give up their quest for redistribution of income and wealth by our acceptance of an appropriate role for government in financing those public goods and services necessary to secure a social safety net below which no American would be allowed to fall.

The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

Just as the left has to be more willing to question 'Government knows best,' the right has to rethink its laissez-faire attitude toward government.

There's no conflict between the social-welfare state and open markets.

I think, with Obama and the progressives, you've seen a massive expansion of big government, and it's all based on a moral premise. The moral premise is that wealth is theft. And I don't just mean the wealth of America, I mean, your wealth, my wealth.

One side of the American psyche wants smaller government, lower taxes, and more choices for individuals, even if those choices increase risk. The other wants a strong social safety net to protect the weakest among us, even if it costs more to minimize risk.

The principal purpose of the Democratic Party is to use the force of government to take property away from the people who earn it and give it to people who do not.

While I am a fervent believer in free markets and limited government, there are rare instances in which government involvement is necessary.

It was under Wilson, of course, that the first huge parts of the Marxist program, such as the progressive income tax, were incorporated into the American system.

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks.

…people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things the government does for others as socialism.

The real needs of the people ought never give way to the imaginary wants of the state.

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man’s fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.

You have the socialist parties ruling Denmark putting in conservative policies because the conservatives control the media and the public discourse.

Minimum-wage increases poll well: When A supports compelling B to give money to C, C is pleased, A is pleased with himself for being virtuous with other people’s money, and B is at least pleased that he can pass some of his increased costs on to his customers, who perhaps include A, who might not notice.

Margaret Thatcher's government redistributed money from rich to poor. And that's the nature of a modern western democracy.

The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes into play. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by public attention.

The real question is whether the federal government should be in the business of redistributing wealth to equalize the economic status of every state, including states where not many people, for whatever reason, have chosen to live. That type of redistribution is a distortion of our economy.

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.