Difference between liberal, conservative is in who gains in trickle-up economics

EDITOR:
Liberals love a good tax increase, especially one that is progressive and punitive. They know that individual wealth is more a function of power than productivity. When they tax the rich, they are not punishing the productive. They are emasculating the powerful.
Conservatives recognize that wealth accumulation is a necessary step toward progress. As evil as it may seem, the good it portends outweighs its evil. Without it there would be no factories, no medical miracles, no highways, no armies and no civilization. Conservatives can't see past the good; liberals can't see past the evil.
You may have discerned a subtle but fundamental truth beneath this conflict. There is no such thing as trickle-down economics. Wealth can never trickle down. It can only trickle up.
Thus, the argument between liberals and conservatives is not over who created the wealth. The argument is who should benefit from this wealth. The liberals say government; the conservatives say you and me.
Ninety years ago Russia settled this argument with a revolution. It opted to trickle its wealth up to government. Today, it is an economic basket case. In fact, history is replete with countries raised up by the hard work of their people only to have their governments drag them back down. Just look at America's union movement.
Unions are products of the private sector. They are agents of economic change and engines of prosperity. They single-handedly stopped the spread of communism in America and created a vast middle class. Then they got into bed with the government, and it has been downhill from there.
The interests of government are not the same as those of unions. Unions are interested in the welfare of their workers -- expanding wages, benefits and jobs. This is best served when the productivity of those workers trickles up to their company in the form of profits. These profits can be used to attract new capital, modernize plants, develop new products, expand markets and secure employment.
When unions joined the government, the wealth of their members began to accumulate as taxes rather than profits. These taxes were spent on social programs, foreign aid, globalization and constituency building. The result is not surprising. Government has grown while factories are in disrepair with manufacturing costs rising, product qualities deteriorating and management competency declining. The result is lower wages, fewer benefits and lost jobs.
So liberals are right. Individual wealth is a function of power and not productivity. But individual wealth is necessary to promote progress and civilization. Which means, the conservatives are also right. So what should we do with this reality? I have a suggestion.
Let's give the liberals their tax increase, but let's not tax just any rich guy. Let's target our taxes to the most unproductive of those wealthy scavengers. Let's tax celebrities and athletes who make their money peddling $150 running shoes to poor inner city kids. Conversely, businessmen who build factories can keep their money so they can build more factories. But people who got rich tearing those factories down, like trial lawyers, they'd get a big increase. Entrepreneurs opening new businesses -- tax cuts. Retired politicians with big-book deals and lucrative speaking fees -- big increases. You get the idea. We'll call it common sense conservatism or enlightened liberalism.
THOMAS MASKELL
Poland