Redistribution of Wealth

The first form of income redistribution was welfare, and the second was affirmative action. Rules had to be devised to wean the recipients of the first. Affirmative action has forced companies to hire minorities who often are less competent than others, through laws and quotas. The consequences of the latter are being felt today, and sadly, there are no methods or rules in place to counter or reverse it. It's practically a taboo subject unless one is an activist engaged in its furtherance.

The third form is giving mortgages to people who would otherwise never qualify. Hello current economic crisis (in part). The second part to the crisis, in my opinion is due largely to this "one world economy" notion. It focuses on jobs located where the pay is lowest combined with the territory with the lowest taxes. Oblivious is where the profits are seated and stashed. That's why American business does not have its own capital to rescue its own collective asses. There are many facets to this discussion, so a more detailed article (or book) will be required.

As a tenet of liberalism, wealth-redistribution is discussed carefully, and promoted as the next advance in civics. Others view it as temporary restitution. There is little to discuss with the promoters, because in part (for example) this current strain rejects the notion that the USSR was a TRUE socialist state. As such, its failed form of redistribution does not count as a failure of THIS version. In this one, they are convinced that the oligarchs will not be able to bend democracy to their collective political will.

This new strain is advanced as additional taxation to redirect higher income and corporate winfall taxes to the have-nots, and the not-so-lucky. This selective pocket-picking is not for infrastructure as a General Colin Powell has naively suggested. In truth, I don't believe the General to be naïve, but merely refusing to state his true reason for his highly publicized endorsement.

So then, how much is too much, and what qualifies as a winfall. Wherever the lines are drawn, it is safe to say most will be careful to avoid it, and the costs will be incalculable. It is a well known fact that increasing corporate taxes push companies along with jobs and economic welfare away to other less bothersome areas.

Businesses are owned and operated by people, so taxation anywhere takes money from people, not faceless corporations. CEO's and every board of directors objective is to show the best growth, the best profit they can for the shareholders. It is not just an objective, it is an fiduciary responsibility. Those shareholders are you and me, retirement funds and others.

Life is not always fair, and not everyone can be lucky, but the form of government that America currently has provides everyone the opportunity to change the dynamics of their lives. The biggest negative wealth-redistribution has is its ability to convert individualism to collectivism. It's not that I'm afraid of change, rather, I embrace it. But not all change is good, and just because one can do a thing, doesn't always mean one should.

It is useful to remember that the income tax everyone supposedly pays today was also intended to be temporary. To which I submit, the only thing temporary about taxes are tax cuts.

The slogan of "change" and "hope" does not clearly explain what will be changed into what. Hope is nonetheless relative and subjective. The last comparison that can be made is with the guy that has nothing. Anyone else can be deemed wealthier.

Should America embark on this collectivist adventure, surely many will still be not-so-lucky, and there will still be have-nots. Life's truths can not be altered, but one's individuality can be diminished.