An Army of John Galts?

ABC News has a story about those "rich" who are considering scaling back their entrepreneurial efforts in order to avoid the oncoming tax hikes... (Hat Tip: The Foundry)

Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan
President Would Slap More Taxes on Those Who Make Over $250K to Fund Health Care

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said. "We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

Why is it every new proposal that comes out of this administration reads like a chapter out of Atlas Shrugged? Is it possible that many of this nation's entrepreneurial talent will withdraw, rather than continue to prop up those they see as "looters"? Will they become the "strikers" of Ayn Rand's vision? Will they slow the "motor of the world"?

Today Instapundit pointed to the Insta-wife's contributions at CPAC, where she discussed the psychological aspects of "Going John Galt", and its growing attraction. Surprisingly, he did not include a link to her original work on the subject at Pajama's Media.

Ask Dr. Helen: Is It Time to ‘Go John Galt’?
Do you ever wonder after dealing with all that is going on with the economy and the upcoming election if it’s getting to be time to “go John Galt”? For those of you who have never read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the basic theme is that John Galt and his allies take actions that include withdrawing their talents, “stopping the motor of the world,” and leading the “strikers” (those who refuse to be exploited) against the “looters” (the exploiters, backed by the government).

Of course the natural knee-jerk reaction from the left is..."That isn't fair!" In fact, ABC News includes this in their piece, running a poll:

VOTE: IS IT FAIR TO REDUCE YOUR SALARY TO AVOID TAXES?

As of this writing, the answer "Yes. I also would find ways to decrease my salary to avoid taxes." is winning with 39%, and both 'Yes' answers are garnering 71% total...

But the left will always see anything the "rich" do for an advantage as 'Not Fair'. Which of course introduces the irony that at the same time it will be 'unfair' to make 'obscene' amounts of money, and 'unfair' to make just enough not to be 'rich'.

So in order to make everything 'fair' the next logical step of course will be to freeze everyone's salary where they are right now in perpetuity. Thus we can continue to squeeze the 'rich', and not allow them to shirk their responsibilities to 'social justice'. Now where have I heard that before....

Directive 10-289
Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive.

It is all so eerie....