Not New - Redisrtibute the Wealth

[rayboyusmc]

In the last lap of his campaign, John McCain is claiming that Barack Obama "believes in redistributing wealth." The problem with this charge is not that it's untrue. It's that McCain—along with most of his supporters—favors redistribution, too. Government redistributes wealth to some extent by its very existence, since it's impractical for citizens to pay for or benefit from it in equal proportion, even if that were desirable. So long as you have a system of taxation and spending on public goods like education and roads, some people will do better out of the bargain than others. The real questions are whether public policy consciously tries to affect the distribution of wealth, and how much it tries to change it and in what direction.

Redistribution has a "from" side (taxation) and a "to" side (spending). On the "from" side, the notion that government should use taxation to increase rather than decrease equality is hardly Marxist. In "The Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith begins his section on taxation with the following maxim: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities." To ask otherwise, Smith writes, would be obviously unfair.

Until the 20th century, the bulk of government revenues came from tariffs, which are regressive, meaning that they redistribute income away from the poor. The progressive principle was enshrined in American practice with the arrival of the federal income and inheritance taxes. The champion of these policies? None other than John McCain's hero, Teddy Roosevelt. We got progressive income taxes with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. The federal estate tax we have today came in 1916.

Some of us still remember the John McCain who opposed Bush's 2001 tax cut, saying it was unfairly tilted toward the rich.

Spread The Wealth? What?s New? | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I thought this one was pretty good:

What's wrong with redistributing the wealth? | SocialistWorker.org

A SPECTER is haunting America. Or at least haunting the fevered brains of John McCain and his fellow Republicans.

It's the specter of "socialism," in the form of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his alleged determination to "spread the wealth around."

It comes as a little bit of a surprise to us here at SocialistWorker.org that Barack Obama is one of us, because we haven't seen him at any of the meetings.

But Michelle Malkin is certain about it. "There's no question," the right-wing commentator declared, "that Barack Obama has been steeped in and marinated with the socialist ethos." Talk radio host Glenn Beck fumed, "I believe there's a socialist agenda there for America."

Adds one-time contender for the Republican presidential nomination Mike Huckabee: "When you punish people for making more money, and you reward them for nothing, that is socialism. And that's a terrible, terrible way for this country to move."

So what is this national tragedy in the making? The McCain campaign (including its new national mascot, Joe the Plumber) is irate about Obama's proposal to rescind tax cuts enacted under George Bush for households with an adjusted gross income of $250,000 and over--the richest 2.3 percent of U.S. taxpayers, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

The income tax rate for the very top rung of the ladder would rise (as it was scheduled to anyway in 2010 when the Bush cuts expire) from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, where it stood under the Clinton administration. "This is a very modest--you might even say, timid--response to what has, in the last 15 years, been a redistribution of wealth from the bottom up to the top," Rick MacArthur of Harper's magazine said in an interview on Democracy Now!

This is what's so "terrible, terrible"? Restoring tax rates for the very richest Americans to the levels of the 1990s--during which time, incidentally, the U.S. economy underwent the longest sustained expansion since the Second World War, so the wealthy couldn't have been that bad off?
----
THE DESPERATE McCain campaign is betting on a piece of conventional wisdom that both main parties cling to: That ordinary people will rebel against any form of tax increase--in fact, they'll probably vote for whichever candidate promises the bigger tax cut. [...] But that's not accurate. There is support for taxes among ordinary people, even higher taxes--but only if they think something worthwhile will be done with the money. For example, opinion surveys show a majority of people in favor of more government spending on education and health care, even if that means higher taxes. Among adults under 30, the sentiment is even stronger--upwards of 90 percent in favor.

Of course, the government never does seem to spend money on those priorities, or anything else worthwhile. Instead, the political system operates beyond the control of working people. Case in point: The U.S. government is set to match the $1 trillion-plus price tag for a war on Iraq that a majority of people oppose, with a bailout of Wall Street and the banks that will cost at least as much, and that is also opposed by the majority.
----
The other side of the conservative argument is that the rich not only pay more, but they get less--the implication being that most government services go to the poor. Thus, John McCain claimed that "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency."

But this is also false. To start with, just look at the summary of the federal budget and see how a program like food stamps stacks up against, for example, the Pentagon's purchases from military contractors.

Beyond that, ask yourself this question: Do you think the government would build a new expressway on-ramp to make it more convenient for you to get to work? Certainly not. But the executives and shareholders of corporations like UPS demand this kind of infrastructure project when they plan for new facilities.

The biggest drug companies make use of federally funded research in developing new products. And, of course, the oil giants can count on the U.S. military--whichever party occupies the White House--to ensure a steady flow of Middle East oil, no matter what the toll in human misery.

In reality, the mantra that "big government is bad"--shared by most Republicans and Democrats for the past several decades--applies only to certain kinds of big government. [...] According to the Guardian, salaries and bonuses for top executives and employees at major banks and investment firms will add up to $70 billion this year. So 10 percent of the $700 billion that Congress committed to "rescue" Wall Street will end up "rescuing" the bank accounts of some of Wall Street's richest players.

Now that's redistributing the wealth.
-----
But this controversy does raise the question: What would be so terrible about a society organized around such a principle?

The standard answer is that without the promise of profit and riches, no one would do any work.

But is that true? Does that square with the reality of most people's lives? Think about the jobs that people you know have chosen, or the activities they volunteer to be part of, or the interests they pursue in the time they have to themselves--and ask if it's true that they wouldn't do anything useful for society but for the reward of big bucks or the threat of poverty?

 

[xsited1]

Using the government to forcibly take money from anyone is morally wrong.

 

[PackMule]

Using the government to forcibly take money from anyone is morally wrong.

******************************************************

HOW WILL O'Bum a, take OPRAS Extra Cash???

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I thought this one was pretty good:

What's wrong with redistributing the wealth? | SocialistWorker.org

The issue here is not the percentage; the issue is that this shithead is overtly declaring that 'IR' is the rightful entitlement of the poor.

In other words, it's no longer the charitable nature of a giving society... we're now getting down the "FUCK YOU! WE DESERVE IT" phase and that usually where skin and muscle start being torn from bone... which tends to make it pretty serious.

American's have long realized that it had to some to this; we're just regretful that the time has actually come. But this too shall pass and the nation will be much better off when they've been eliminated.