Redistributing The Wealth

Jewish Times ^ | Thursday, October 30, 2008 | Larry Gordon

[nickcarraway]

It can be considered the theme of the final stretch of the election campaign for a new president of the United States: Barack Obama’s assertion that the wealth in this country needs to be effectively redistributed.

That means implementing new legislation to legally take money from those with high (or above average) incomes and award it accordingly to those unable or ill-equipped to earn more money or raise themselves up.

How to approach the subject of the economics of the United States, and the concept of managing the flow of trillions of dollars that is the backbone of this country, is the issue that probably most profoundly defines the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Granted that our national economy is in a state of serious flux—so much so that the man who was the head of the Federal Reserve for 14 years, Alan Greenspan, said last week that he had not seen it coming. He said that he could not tell where it was going to go or how and when it was going to settle down. The point is that if Alan Greenspan says he didn’t know and still doesn’t, then what can we say about the way we see these events unfolding daily right before us?

The fundamental difference as I—a financial novice—see it is that John McCain would aim to cut taxes despite these difficult circumstances we are now laboring under. The Democrats would have you think that the idea behind reducing taxes is to somehow reward those who are already privileged or fortunate enough to be in a position to garner unusually high or way-above-average incomes. But that’s not the case. The motivation behind constructing favorable tax breaks for corporations and others is to spur them on and encourage them to use that money to expand their businesses, which as a result will create more jobs. And that’s what Americans need more than anything else—jobs and income.

On the other hand, it is Obama’s economic philosophy that there is a serious flaw in the fashion in which society allows income to flow in this country. The pronouncement of his commitment to redistribute the wealth in America means penalizing those at the upper levels of business and rewarding those who have not amply or successfully used the freedoms or opportunities in the U.S. to advance themselves and their families economically. It can perhaps be effectively argued that there is already a system in place that calls for the redistribution of income—and it’s called taxes. The more money you make, the more taxes you pay. And a great deal of your federal tax dollars goes to fund the welfare and the Medicaid systems. On the state level, here in New York, more than half of a $130 billion annual budget goes to fund Medicaid and public education. So, to an extent, the concept of redistribution is already fairly well in place.

In Jewish life, there is another plan (which some might think is as radical as Obama’s) that calls for the voluntary redistribution of income, and our sages and law books say that signing on to the plan promises great Divine reward on many levels. The concept is tzedakah (charity), which largely requires that the giving of funds to those in need be done voluntarily and as an expression of care and concern for your neighbor and friend.

Contrary to the way in which Obama thinks people with large sums of money conduct themselves, tzedakah flies in the face of the idea that money for the less fortunate needs to be forcibly wrested from those with above-average resources. From the Obama perspective, however, perhaps the impression is that money needs to be effectively and legislatively redistributed. A clue to this way of thinking might be his and Mrs. Obama’s rather minimal contributions to charity, as recorded in his tax returns of the last seven years that were released earlier this year.

In those returns, it can be seen that from 2000 to 2004, Barack Obama and his wife gave a total of $3,500 per year, mostly to local charities in Chicago where they reside. Mr. Obama explained earlier this year that during this period he and his wife were still paying off student loans and that it was difficult to commit more of their resources to charity. In subsequent years, once Mr. Obama began making more money—mostly from book sales—he was able to give more. So the amount did increase, though it was still not that impressive; in 2005, they gave 4.7 percent of their income to charity, and in 2006, 6.1 percent of their income went to charitable causes.

On the other hand, Senator John McCain was substantially more charitable with the money he earned, outside of the money given by the John and Cindy McCain Foundation. On his own, Mr. McCain gave 26 percent of his income to charity, according to tax returns released for 2006. In addition, he has donated all proceeds from his book sales, going back to 1998, in the sum of $1.8 million.

The point of all this is not about the sums of money that are given to charity. Rather, it is about the orientation and attitude of what it means as one strives to get ahead and raise himself or herself up, while at the same time not forgetting those who are less fortunate and require assistance and even largesse. The Talmud and other sources in Torah are replete with the retelling of events where someone sacrificed many of his own possessions in order to lend a hand to a friend, neighbor, brother, or sister. The idea of the need to legislate and institute hard and fast laws that require distributing resources to others—and not encouraging everyday people to reach out willingly to help others—does not cast our society in much of a favorable light and is less than encouraging as to what this approach says about us and the future of this country.

Legislating the redistribution of wealth, as Mr. Obama has suggested, may also fly in the face of what the framers of our Constitution intended for us all these years later. Our Constitution was developed in such a way as to limit the involvement of government in our lives. Keep in mind that those who founded this country did so as an alternative to tyranny and overbearing governments that existed in other countries. The unique freedoms featured in this country are in place and working so well because of less government involvement, not more. That’s what John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republicans steadfastly stand for.

Unfortunately, while he may be well meaning, Barack Obama just has a different vision of what makes America unique. The idea, reported in the news earlier this week, that he is urging people to take off from work on Election Day to vote and help get out the vote for him speaks volumes about his approach to the concept of working. It says a great deal about the adversarial fashion in which he views the workplace. Where we work should be treated with reverence and respect, not cavalierly or with neglect or disregard. The polls open in most states at 6:00 a.m. and close at 10:00 p.m. so that people can exercise their right to vote either early in the morning or late at night. Telling people to take off from work that day is a wrong and terrible message.

At the same time, while charitable deeds and generosity in giving are indeed noble, it is also a fundamental element of people’s upbringing in all religions. Beyond our required taxes that we pay, there should be a focus on giving more money to the needy, even if it means depriving ourselves of something we would like or desire. This may not be the answer that plugs today’s economic holes, but neither is Obama’s distribution-of-wealth formula.

When you go to the voting booth on Tuesday, you will be casting a vote that can change the very face of America for many years to come. You don’t want to look back someday and say that you thought you were voting for a new vision for America but it just wasn’t so and that you had gotten it all wrong. On Election Day, you will be asked to use your good judgment about what’s best for America. Mark Twain once said that a person’s good judgment comes about as a result of experience—and that experience comes about as a result of bad judgment.

[Publius6961]

That means implementing new legislation to legally take money from those with high (or above average) incomes and award it accordingly to those unable, unwilling or ill-equipped to earn more money or raise themselves up.

There.
Fixed it for you.

The only mystery to me is, if goverment has failed, utterly, to force the deadbeat, the welfare generations and the parasites to work, how will they prevent the traditional responsible workers from working less, and from using every means possible to minimize their income and their tax liabilities?

[CaliforniaCon]

RE: “The only mystery to me is, if goverment has failed, utterly, to force the deadbeat, the welfare generations and the parasites to work, how will they prevent the traditional responsible workers from working less, and from using every means possible to minimize their income and their tax liabilities?”

*********

Indeed, this is a great question. How are taxes collected when assets are hidden or income purposely lowered? How are actual workers going to be forced to work harder and longer?

I am on the brink of retirement age, have fair amount of savings and will make CERTAIN that my assets are not taxed away to provide the lazy and shiftless with all the freebies to which they think they are somehow entitled. Redistribution of wealth my a**!!!