Who are "The Rich" Democrats always talk about?

Yesterday I had a conversation with a democrat friend about Hillary's idea to give every child born in this country $5,000 upon birth.  I asked him the same question I posted in my article about it, who will pay for this plan being as it would cost this country $20 BILLION dollars annually?  While he admits to not being a fan of Hillary he still tried to defend her plan, his first comment was that clearly she needed to work out her statement as not all children would need the $5,000.  After all a child from a rich family wouldn't need it nearly as much as that of someone from a poor family.  Now aside from the fact that this already from birth would create a completely unconstitutional situation in that all men and women born into this country would no longer been seen in the eyes of the government as being equal (not that they are now) it still did not answer the question of who would be paying for it.  So I pushed back again, who will be paying for this.  Then came the answer all Democrats love to give... the rich!

Like Robinhood, democrats continue looking for ways to rob from the rich and give to the poor.  The fact remains any way you look at it though, Robinhood was a thief. 

But who are these rich they keep looking to reap more and more from?   Top 1%?  5%?  10%?  One NH Democrat suggested anyone with a household income over $72,000 in NH wasn't paying their fair share in taxes.  Others such as my friend somehow believe that we can continue to push these multi BILLION dollar programs off on the top 1%.  Over all however most democrats believe that the rich is anyone in the top 10%.  The best I can find is figures from 2003 which show the top 10% being anyone with a household income over $82,000.  The top 1% in 2004 were those with household incomes of $850,000 or more. 

Now keep in mind living in New England has people believing that the rich are making far more then they really are as the top 10% in the north east due to the big cities Boston and NY is $185,000 a year.  That's nearly double the rest of the country.  When you look at the mid west and deep south people on average earn far less, but then again the cost of living is far less (which is another issue about federal income tax, it doesn't take cost of living into account).

Now let's think about this in number of people, the US currently has a population of roughly 300 million people.  The top 1% would be 3 million people.  If we were to tax only the top 1% for Hillary's baby program that would be a little under $7,000 in new taxes per year and that's for this ONE SINGLE PROGRAM.  That's $700 a year in new taxes on the top 10%, which is the family with the household income of $82,000 a year.

How many new programs that Democrats dream up will it take before that top 1% or even top 10% start looking to move to areas with lower taxes?  Or maybe shift their businesses over seas to help mask their profits?  Who will that burden be pushed to then?

If you think that doesn't happen, you're wrong.   Like myself, I know many others who have moved to NH because local states taxes continue to climb in places like NY and CT.  People who can afford to move do move leaving that burden on the lower and lower income groups below them.

That is why social programs do not work and also why every socialist country has failed over time.  Of course Democrats fail to understand this and continue looking for socialistic ways to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor when in reality all they are doing is continuing to squeeze out the middle class.  The dream of "the rich" paying for everything is just that... a dream.  So if Democrats wish to be taken seriously they need to push back when people like Hillary within their party comes up with these grand schemes that will be pushed off on "the rich".  Do yourselves a favor and ask for once who "the rich" really are and just how many social programs they can have thrust on them because it's too much.