Here is a spreading the wealth example I got from a friend:

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money”.
Once in the restaurant I noticed that my waiter had on a “Obama 08” tee shirt.
When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him that while he had given me exceptional service, his tee shirt made me feel he obviously believes in Senator Obama’s plan to redistribute the wealth. I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need, the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and angrily stormed away.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy \$3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.
As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pissed that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on, with those doing the work.

I find it ironic that the waiter would be more than happy getting a rebate at the expense of someone else, but is not happy when the rebate comes at his expense. Some may argue that this is not an “apples to apples” comparison of what Obama plans since both the homeless person and the waiter would get rebates under Obama and no money would be taken from the waiter. However, the premise is appropriate in that no one really likes losing hard earned wealth at the expense of someone else. This example is also appropriate in its progressive rate of wealth spreading. The waiter is losing only \$3, but a person making 200K could lose an additional 5% of their wealth at a minimum (\$10K). I doubt \$3 is 5% of the waiter’s annual income. That would mean he only earned \$60 for the year. If the waiter earned a measly 5K for the year (I am sure it much more than this), the \$3 spreading the wealth experiment cost him .066% of his wealth! That is a tax rate 166 times lower than the 200K individual, but an income that is only 40 times lower. That seems fair to me.

This example also points out on glaring problem with the Obama spread the wealth plan. How much money is going to “dead beats”. People that do not want to work and only want hand outs to support alcohol and drug addictions. This number may be small, nevertheless, it make absolutely no sense to give money to people that will not use it wisely. Most hard working Americans must take a drug test to get work, do the spread the wealth recipients have to do the same? No. Does a spread the wealth recipient have to show that they are at least trying to get a job, or they are trying to better themselves? No. I say give “spread the wealth” money to individuals that work to fix up their neighborhoods and work to fix our city and road infrastructure problems. Handing out money for nothing in return is irresponsible unless you know the people are for a fact responsible. And how will we ever determine that? It is almost impossible.