does redistributing the wealth go against everything that is capitalism ?

Question

if america does under our next president redistribute the wealth , then haven't we as a country given up on capitalism ? wouldn't such a plan of wealth redistribution qualify as some form of communism ? as its not something that goes on in capitalist/ traditional economies .

mean if someone is fortunate enough to make some money and make something of there life . what right do we have as a country to take that money away or redistribute it ? if we did do such a thing we would be living in a communist / socialist country there is no doubt in my mind .

Answer 1

Don't you realize that the majority who have had dreams have been sacrificed this way already? Can't you see that this redistribution is already happening, but it only becomes an issue when that money helps the lower and middle classes? Wall street welfare is one example of money redistributed to Andrew McCain, who is John McCain's son. Your money also goes to war profiteers when it should be there to serve your interests. I mean once again defense contractors (selling weapons of war), American and British general contractors (rebuilding broken Iraq using cheap labor), and big oil (sending oil for tankers and planes and seizing key oil fields among the invaded coutnry) are profitting from the war. That money could go to fixing bridges that are collapsing and decaying and other infrastructure, it could help to fund infrastructure, it could help the oppressed people open businesses, pay tuition, get adequate wages, and get equal education. How dare a person running for president call you a whiner when you need your tax money to work for you. Once again, how dare he call the working class and middle class lazy, when they are the pillars of the economy. As workers and consumers, they keep the economy up and running. Without them, everything would collapse. Taxing the rich more is not redistribution because everyone is paying what they can. The rich have enjoyed loop holes and tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas to places where they don't have to respect minimum wage laws all this time. A country is a communal entity. If it is sink or swim, the government is not useful for anything and we might as well call it anarchy if the average person is organized out. No one got where they were without other members of the country's support either as customers, or they were taught by another person or in some way they benefitted from being a part of the country. We all have to learn to give and to receive. If you help your workers, you will be more productive. If everyone works, we would not have to pay for them to stay in jail or on welfare, or to watch our back because they will steal from us because they have no job. Working is not just for the worker, it is a service. Everyone should have work so they can serve their country. The problem is that we believe in haves and have nots, and refuse to give up this idea. This selfishness is what chokes us.

Answer 2

Yes, but who claims the US is a capitalistic country. We are a hybrid.



Allow me to enlighten you. Republican William Howard Taft was the first President to implement a socialist tax system by signing the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution. The progressive income tax system as it is called, has been taxing America's rich at a higher rate since 1913. Much of this revenue is used to pay for social entitlements for the middle class and poor. Very socialistic. Anytime, the middle class and poor is given a tax cut (which BTW, both Bush and Reagan have done some of), it is considered income redistribution. Obama is no different than most democratic and some republican presidents that have implemented the very same type of economic program. It's called "Demand-side Economics" and many economies have prospered under it such as the economies under Kennedy and Johnson.



Maybe nobody told you, but the US has been a mix of socialism and capitalism for a very long time.

Answer 3

No, it does not. In fact, it's the essence of real capitalism.



Skip the hype. Here's wha tObama is talking about--he sued the phrase as a shorthand. Assuming (incorrectly) that everyone had the intelligence to know what he meant.



>Capitalism depends on markets. Tat means lots of people who have the money to purchase goods and services.

>If a significant part of te population--for whatever reason, cannot get the education or othe access to earn a good living, they don't buy much. Worse, many end up dependent--they don't produce, but what they consume becomes a drain on the economy, rather than a stimulus to it.

>therefore, you get tehe most economic growth -- and the most capitalist opportunities--when you make sure everyone has full access to education and the other resources needed for them to become producers and consumers.

>any money--including public funds--tht is "redistrubted" to promote education, social services, etc. that increases these opportunities is thus an investment. It pays off in the long run in a more productive workforce/population, people who consume more, and reduced expenses for public health care, welfare, etc.



Now--again--skip the stupid hype and ideology. The empirical data--ALL of it--economists have back for many decades supports this approach. Id DOES NOT MATTER what the right wing wants to think. The facts say this is what works.



A final note. Granted, pubic/social programs can be mismanaged and end up costing more than they are worth. But that is another issue. The solution is to insist on competent policy and management, not to abandon programs that form much of the base for economic growth and job creation.



Why call it "wealth distribution." It's a common term but one that is misleading today. In the 1960s/70s, people usetd the term to mean ending artificial barriers that allowed some people (like Southern mill owners) to get rich by abusive practices. In that sense, the phrase meant changing policies so that the working class (blacks and whites) had a fair shot at getting a piece of the pie. Today, the term is still used, but as I said, it can be misleading.



OBAMA 2008

Answer 4

Okay, yes the way you are shaping this redistributing wealth is socialist, not necessarially communist (where the government controls the private sector), but definately socialist. The thing here is when you are talking about america, what we operate under is not capitalism, in its traditional sense. Capitalism is a free market economy where the government does not interviene and there are fears of monopolies. Our government intervines in the economy, for the better or the worse (taxing them and then bailing them out when they fail), and I think if you go to a mom and pop convenience store they will definately tell you that WalMart has a monopoly and hoe that one does not spring up in their area. Since the government intervenes in companies, the public is paying for the intervention. If you are saying that "wealthy" people should not have to help "poor" people then why should "poor" people have to help big companies? The interacting between the economic sector and the government makes formal capitalism unheard of in America (again for the better or the worse).

Answer 5

It is funny you should ask because Sarah Palin did the same thing in Alaska.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_el_pr/fact_check_palin_socialism_1P



Obama isn't Robin Hood, OK?



Our country has a debt of 10 trillion dollars. We have two wars to pay for. Our economy is in the toilet. Some will get a tax CUT...not a rebate check while others (who can afford it) will have to pay more.



http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf



We are not turning into a Socialist country. We have had social programs for years. We have the Social Security Administration, Social Services - which provides Medicaid and medicare and many other helpful organizations. And, no, we will not become a communist country.

Answer 6

No. Most capitalist systems include some redistributionist elements. Do you pay income tax? If so, your money is being redistributed by the government. The question is simply: to whom and from whom is money redistributed? Obama seems to think - in common with most moderate capitalist systems - that the very wealthy ought to contribute more to support social services for everyone. This is hardly radical socialism. Indeed, it is the basis upon which most Western economies have operated for over 60 years.

Answer 7

In case you are in a cave with Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush just Redistributed wealth from you and me to the Ultra Rich Fat Cat CEO's on Wall Street when he inked his demanded $850 Billion Socialist Bailout of Wall Street passed by Congress.



He also Redistributed Wealth to the Rich when he Nationalized our Banks.



Strange how a Sitting Republican President did what many were afraid Obama would do.

Answer 8

clearly this forum is full of people who have either never taken the first step, Principles of economics or who were not awake during the class period.

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. Scandanavia and other European countries (Denmark, Germany, Sweden--for those who don't know their world geography either) are all countries not Communist but they practice Socialism and yet they are rated the top nations to live in. They have free health care free education etc those are socialistic principles that have proven to work.

Answer 9

i don't think you have to worry about true wealth distribution even if obama wins, if you truly fear that it's funny. the tax plan is available, you can read it, no where does it say people come and take your things. as it stands now some say the wealthy can shelter thier money or with bush tax cuts not pay any taxes. and i'm sure the govt isn't just going to start handing out money, that's for the universal healthcare, public universitys, etc. thus it's not redistrbution. the rich should pay taxes like anyone else

Answer 10

Re-distribution of wealth is key phrase that the republicans are going with, because it sounds like socialism. Obama's plan is not about socialism. It's about fair taxation. We live in the most fortunate country in the world, and it's high time that our government agrees with the majority that trickle-down economics don't work. Trust me, many of those folks in the $200K plus salary range will either find ways to get around the extra taxes (can you say off-shore bank in the Cayman Islands? totally avoiding their duty to their homeland), or adjust to them, while the majority of us will either have more tax relief or not have our taxes raised.

I've never seen so many middle class people scream that this is socialism and that the wealthy folks shouldn't pay their fair share as I have in this campaign. The tax breaks don't work, our economy is broken, and someone (if not all of us) are going to have to pay for it.

Answer 11

No. Taxes are always a redistribituion of money as Colin Powell put it.

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying less, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAvyoxNuPUI

(starts at aprox 1:45)

Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

No one truly makes 100 percent of his money by himself. Individuals depend on a wide array of government services to support the very free market in which they earn their money. Without these supports, there would be no free market in the first place.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-earnedmoney.htm

McCain on no occasion suggested to end the progressive income tax. What's more he defended that system throughout his career

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5huxFz9UzzIQM5OrgZXnhWONwMp6wD94322H80

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY&feature=related

All the campaign talk and media chatter about "socialism" obscures the most fundamental issue: Socialism is not merely a set of technical measures involving state intervention into the economy. All capitalist nations engage in this to one degree or another, depending on circumstances. State ownership does not in any sense define a society as socialist, when the state itself is an organ of class rule controlled by the financial aristocracy.

Socialism means the reorganization of economic life under the democratic control of the actual producers, the working people whose labor creates all wealth. It can come about only through the independent political mobilization of the working class, led by a revolutionary party, which establishes a new and far more democratic form of state, a workers' state, which exercises ownership and control over the means of production. Socialism cannot be engineered through backroom deals between Wall Street bankers and Washington politicians, or through the policies of any Democratic or Republican politician.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/pers-o23.shtml

Answer 12

Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.



Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).



Actual economics is the persons that are paying the business loans of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.



Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.

Answer 13

Well, when was the economy in better shape? Under Clinton's tax plan or Bush's?



Bush's tax plan has sent our country into a downward spiral. FYI, McCain supported Obama's tax plan until he started campaigning for president and realized he had to win over a bunch of Nazi's to get elected.

Answer 14

Over enough time, we're forced to give up on the notion of true capitalism to make the country safe. Technology allows us to achieve greater efficiency and therefore require fewer people to accomplish the same amount of work. This lends itself to mass poverty unless adjustments are made.



Those adjustments start to look a little bit more like communism, sure, but are nowhere near true communism. It's unfortunate that we can't ride this capitalist machine forever. But we have to take care of our fellow people... even if they can't succeed on their own... in order to keep the country safe and operating smoothly.

Answer 15

Returning the the same exact freaking tax code we had in the 90's is not wealth redistribution

If you don't want to invest in this nations future why don't you leave

Answer 16

redistribution of wealth is when the gvmt. takes all your assets(that includes the building, the money, the inventory), and then takes your profits away from you....proper taxation is not redistribution of wealth....it just is proper taxation, meaning the more money you make, the more taxes you pay---in Germany they pay 56% in income tax, 19% in sales taxes---so what are Americans trying to cry about?

Answer 17

Yeah. The whole idea of capitalism is making as much money as you can for yourself. The free market is supposed to be an "Invisible Hand" lifting the masses via a trickle down effect (say what you will about him, but reagan was a true capitalist). the idea of government interference is anathema to pure capitalism. Look at the treatment of labor unions in the 19th Century if you want to know how they felt about redistribution.

Redistribution of wealth is a Marxist concept.

Answer 18

Hardly. That argument went out the window with child labor laws, overtime laws, anti-trust laws, social security, medicare, etc.



Markets always have needed checks and balances to stop inequities in this system. You don't want to overdo it, of course, but a little help has proved useful.

Answer 19

No one is redistributing wealth. We have a progressive tax code and have had for some time.



Please think beyond the Fixed Noise talking points.



Obama 2008

Answer 20

Yes it does! For more detail see http://calculatedrisk.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/31/fundamental_assumptions_i_the_zero-sum_game.thtml

Answer 21

It's hilarious how so many who have so little are wanting to keep the rich rich. "Of those of whom much is given, much is expected." I believe that might be in the Bible. What is wrong with Obama want to go back to the income tax rates that we had under President Reagan?

Answer 22

Wealth is redistrubted under capitalism all the time. Mostly to corporations, but also from the federal to state governments to pay for infrastructure, social programs, etc.

Answer 23

It sure does. Is it too late for me to get my wealth back from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Answer 24

Are you saying our president Bush should not have shifted the Clinton tax cuts for the middle class to the upper upper classes?

Answer 25

He was talking about a progressive tax rate. The US has has one for most of a century - and it used to be much more progressive - when this country was in better shape.

Answer 26

Basically, yes. The premise of capitalism is that every man wants to better himself, and so works harder to earn more. Capitalism is rendered useless if wealth is distributed. Because people don't get to keep what they earn, they have no incentive to work.

Answer 27

Nope. This is America. We make the rules up as we go.

Answer 28

No it goes toward everything goodlism:)

Answer 29

We've already been a somewhat socialist country due to income taxes.... i think..

Answer 30

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the support of Paul.

Answer 31

Yes. Capitalism is about creating wealth, not taking it away from those who have earned it to give to those who have not.

Answer 32

Yes. That's socialism. Look up the definition using Google. It has distributing the wealth in the definition.



You people just can't stand it. IT'S THE DEFINITION. I DIDN"T CREATE IT, NOR DID I SUBMIT IT TO GOOGLE.

Answer 33

Yes, it's communism.