Tex Norman

Redistribution of Wealth: Pros and Cons



Posted: Friday, October 17, 2008

by

Usually, when you hear a Republican say the words Redistribution of Wealth, the speaker gets this look on their face like they just had a little acid reflux moment.  They say the words, Redistribution of Wealth, they burp up some stomach acids into the mouth, there is a burning, followed by a gag reflex, the face contorts, and the speaker is a little bit sick just from saying those words.  Obama and Democrats are currently and frequently accused of being advocates of the Redistribution of Wealth.  As is common with our political vocabulary, some words sound like candy to one group and the same word sounds like doodly-squat to another group.  Redistribution of Wealth may be one of those words. 

Reasonable people can reason differently, so I expect many to disagree with me, even though I am really trying to think out what I think.  Since I am already a committed Democrat there is a good chance I am going to believe the Pros, I really am wanting to know both the Pros and the Cons of this Redistribution of Wealth. 

Usually, what people think when they hear or say the words Redistribution of Wealth  is that money is taken from people with money and it is passed out to people with little to no money via government programs like Welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.  In Philosophy the Redistribution of Wealth is called egalitarianism.  In political ideologies the Redistribution of Wealth is called Socialism, or, by its extremist advocates it is called Communism. 

Just coming off the cold war and lots of Kill a Commie for Christ books, movies and bumper-stickers, anything that is supported by Communists and Socialists is bad.  Right?

Not necessarily.  I remember once calling in to a talk radio show and making comments on an issue regarding the school system.  At the time I was a high school English teacher and I was explaining something and why I believe what I believed.  I don't recall the issue in detail, but it wasn't about politics.  The second caller to the radio DJ starts off saying,

"I think that last caller [me] is absolutely right.  I am a member of the American Nazi Party and we. . . "

I had no respect for the American Nazi Party, and I feel certain they would hate almost everything I say and believe, but in this one case I apparently had a view of the classroom shared by a Nazi.  Just because we shared one opinion did not mean that we shared many opinions.  In a similar way, the Redistribution of Wealth may be a concept supported by Pink-o-Commies, but that does not automatically make it acceptable ONLY to commie-pink-o.  There still may be some Pros and Cons about Redistribution of Wealth, and that is what I am exploring here.

CONs

1.      Redistribution of Wealth is bad because in our political system of free enterprise/capitalism, private property is sacred, inviolable, and sacrosanct. 
 
Society is based upon a person's right to work, earn, and keep the fruits of their labor.  If I create wealth then that wealth belongs to me and no one, and no government  has the right to take it away from me. 
 
2.      Redistribution of Wealth is bad because wealthy people create growth opportunities for society.
 
This is why Republicans generally object to taxes:  Their idea is that since only those with big bucks have the money to startup or expand new businesses, then if you take money from them they won't be able to start or expand those businesses. This would then be the first of many dominoes to fall.  The rich would not be able to hire new workers, and may have to lay people off.  So Redistribution of Wealth, they reason, hurts the economy.  Redistribution of Wealth doesn't reduce the number of poor, it increases the number of our poor
 
3.      Redistribution of Wealth is bad because it coddles the poor, and reinforces the tendency of most people to be lazy, and happy to live on the dole.  

I was recently reading a discussion board where one of the posters eloquently explained this particular objection to the Redistribution of Wealth:

there are [people]  who abuse benefits who smoke, drink and gamble and have no intention of working again. . .yet they get enough handouts to live a nice life

i f@#king hate you all and all the single mothers who abuse the system  ~ Slums999

This is a variant of the Calvinist concept that we are "Saved by Works."  This concept at least implies that those who get rich, get rich because they work hard, and these hard workers are "blessed" and deserve their rewards. The poor folk are to blame in some fashion for their position in society, it is your own fault if you are down on your luck and busted, because you are lazy and made bad choices. 

People who believe this stuff also believe that if government intervened, redistributed the wealth, alter the balance by taking money from the rich and giving it to these lazy slugs, it will only result in more lazy people and the eventual we'll have more lazy people living on the dole than we'll have people available to tap for the dole coffers, and there will be a total breakdown of society.

4.      Redistribution of Wealth is bad because it is forced charity. 
If pressed by stories of people destitute for reasons that have nothing to do with their poor decisions or laziness (for example people who are needy because of birth defects, or accidents) the anti- Redistribution of Wealth folks, will say that those people should be helped by groups that choose to help the poor.  The Salvation Army, Red Cross, United Way, local churches should step in and help those their group members voluntarily choose to help. 

5.   Redistribution of Wealth is bad because it is a democratic armed robbery. 

Government is an agency of force.  If you don't pay your taxes the government will come and take it and pay punish you for your refusal to give the goods up easily by putting you in prison..  If you refuse to give it, if you resist the government they will send people with guns to come by and take you and your wealth.  Resist then and you could end up shot dead.  These anti-tax zealots believe that if anything CAN be done voluntary, the voluntarily is the ONLY way to get it done.  The Government Redistributionists don't just want to give money away, they want to give other people's money away. Specifically, they want to take money from those that have earned it, and given to those that haven't.
 
6.   Redistribution of Wealth is bad because it supplants our motive for creating wealth. 
Why bother to create wealth if you are going to be punished for being a creative, hard working, insightful entrepreneur?

I remember once that my gifted son was rewarded for doing his work faster than anyone else in the class by being given more work to do. Why finish your work early if the reward is going to be that you end up having to do twice as much work as everyone else.  They didn't have a score over 100%, and An A+ + + was really just an A+.

 PROs

1.  Redistribution of Wealth is good because of the human intrinsic sense of fairness. 

All of us enter this world totally and equally helpless.  Helpless, dependent babies will not survive without care, and yet they have done nothing to earn their keep.  Yes, parents have the responsibility of caring for their children, not the rest of us, but most of us would step in, and care for babies if the parents failed to do so, or did so poorly that the life of the baby was in danger.  There have been many psychological experiments that show that human beings have some sort of intrinsic sense of fairness, and if the minimum standard of fairness can't exist any other way, humans have, throughout history, used some form of fairness established by some sort of economic equality supported system.

Caring for the poor, the damaged, and sick, and the profoundly unlucky is a compassionate thing to do, but there are not enough compassionate people willing to help.  If money is just required, as a sort of charge for living in society, then the burden of the costs of compassion are less, and the needs are met. 
2.   Redistribution of Wealth is good because it is good for both the poor and for the rich.

Read Tale of Two Cities and see how things go for the rich when the poor are ignored.  When the population contains huge gross inequalities, when the rich are real rich and the poor are not only really poor, but also there in huge numbers, there that governmental society will suffer from economic inefficiencies.  Economic inefficiencies occur when, for example, there are too many people too poor to buy shoes which make rich shoe manufacturers suffer.  Too many poor people limit the growth potential of the economy, so while the rich may want to keep all their money, unless the masses have some level of cash the rich won't stay rich..

Shoe manufacturers can't make it by making shoes for just the rich, because there are not enough rich feet.  There tend to be fewer rich and a majority poor and middle class, so if you want to sell goods, it just makes sense to sell stuff to the majority (the poor and middle class.)

3.  Redistribution of Wealth is good because it contributes to stability and peace.

When societies get out of balance it leads to social unrest.  If there is too big a gap between the rich and the poor, and if the poor have no hope to improve their plight then it has, and will again, lead to civil disturbance, looting, and sometimes revolution.  During the French revolution much of the furniture in the rich estates were looted by the frustrated berserk poor, but they didn't want the furniture.  The French rich furniture was too dainty, impractical, and decorative to be used in the hovels of the poor, but it would burn, so much of it was used for firewood.  The resentment of the poor against the rich may even lead to their death or banishment and the forcible taking of their property.  American's condemn the Communist system of the old Soviet Union, but when you study Russian history you find that there were millions of poor, and a small group of rich, and the rich ignored the needs of the poor.  Communism took over the government because of these conditions.  The revolution in Russia may have resulted in oppression and deprivation for the people, but it happened because the rich ignored the needs of the poor.  Even where a rebellion doe not succeed in taking over the country, it still does damage to the society, and that damage may be severe and long lasting.

4.      Redistribution of Wealth is good when it is in balance, constantly scrutinized, and viewed as the cost of living in a civilization.

Rules are necessary because we can't live in close proximity to one another without having rules.  Without rules of the road we could drive any damn way we wished, but so could everyone else.  How will we have traffic flow efficiently, or avoid massive car crashes without speed limits, stop signs and deciding which side of the road to drive on?  In a similar way, if we are going to live in a society we have to pay dues.  The dues are called taxes, but they are actually a sort of National Homeowners Association fee. 

Can that fee get out of balance?  Yes.  Can the fee fund be wasted, or spent in ways that do not benefit the whole group?  Of course. 

But just because taxation is often inefficient, or used in bad ways, does not mean we should eliminate the fee.  We should regulate the fee.  If money is wasted it needs more scrutiny.  The needs don't go away because the administration of the fee was performed inefficiently.

Tex Norman is a social worker, currently working at the Oklahoma DHS Abuse and Neglect hotline. He interviews people reporting abuse and/or neglect of children and vulnerable adults and writes a narrative. The narratives (and demographics) are used to initiate investigations of the allegations. He says it is like writing 8 to 10 stories a day. In August 2012, he will have been married to Kathie for 40 years. He has a son Ryan who earned a PhD from Princeton and he is now a scientist doing research in molecular biology. Tex spends his free time working as an artist and writer. He has one art site, and a blog that might be of interest: http://tex-norman.artistwebsites.com/ and http://collagepoetrybytex.blogspot.com/
This Article has been viewed 3,586 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)
» left by koolau from Honolulu, HI 1 year 317 days ago.
I agree that you have touched upon the major points in the debate. One point I also encounter is that property is theft or the concept of property is evil.  Therefore, redistribution of wealth has no qualities of theft. What do you think on those two ideas?
 
I agree that help from the producers/capable should be provided to maintain social stability. My friend argues it as moral obligation, but I reject that idea. I see it as a negative impact that needs to be reduced to merely tolerable levels.  
 
The concept of tax is not in question, but the execution of how to provide the aid and what amount is the hard and controversial part. I think we should always go for the minimum amount and avoid trying to eliminate the problem. The Universe will always have winners and losers, no amount of human thought and intervention can prevent that.  The fact that geography is unequal (caused by the Universe), will automatically cause winners and losers.  The efforts of man to eliminate it will always fail.
» left by Ron
from Delaware 27 days 12 hours ago.
You said - "But just because taxation is often inefficient, or used in bad ways, does not mean we should eliminate the fee."

I agree with the underlying principle to this statement. However it funny how this argument is used against gun right. If you just change some words in your statement it fits.

'But just because guns are often used in bad ways, does not mean we should eliminate the guns.'

Yet the left do not believe so. Every time there is a mass shooting they start trumpeting up "we need more gun laws, or just banned them all together."
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.