The "Redistribution of Wealth"

The "Redistribution of Wealth"

For a few years now, it's been a pointed question (or statement) from those on the political right: "Do you believe in the redistribution of wealth?"

The sequence of events goes something like this: A non-right wing politician or speaker advocates a policy, the right accuses them of "redistribution of wealth," then labels the policy or the speaker a
socialist, and brands them antithetical to all things American. The problem is that this is a radical coloring of language, and is manipulation of policy towards radical ends. The phrase itself is morally neutral, and is not socialist, or capitalist, or communist.

Public schools are paid for with property taxes. The money flows from every property owner in a school district to the public schools in that district, paying teachers directly in money and children in kind with education.  Public schools are thus a redistribution of wealth from property owners to teachers and children.

Military spending is paid for with federal income tax. The money flows from every individual paying federal income tax to the DOD, paying soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen directly in money, as well as paying the hundreds if not thousands of weapons manufacturers. The DOD is thus the redistribution of wealth from all people paying income taxes to soldiers and those who own and operate weapons manufacturing.

Social security too is redistribution of wealth, since there is no attempt to pay out only what an individual pays in, and college loans are also a redistribution of wealth, where the money flows from young students trying to earn a degree to the U.S. government, which is to say that our young people taking federal student loans are redistributing their own money to the whole population of the U.S.

To the accusation that the redistribution of wealth is socialism, the question isn't one of abstract theory, but of scale and execution: Public schools have existed for over two hundred years in the U.S. Are they a form of socialism? I would argue no; public schools are simply a choice made by the taxpaying public to invest in our future as a country, pay back some of the benefit they derive from having an educated populace, and create a sustainable system that will allow a younger person to someday have a successful life, just as so many of us who personally benefited from a public education have also done. Is the US military the manifestation of a socialist government? I sincerely doubt it.

(The definition of what is socialism is a larger question, but let's start with it being either the government owning the means of production, or of directing the use of all production in excess of that necessary to keep people alive back to the population at large, rather than allowing wealth to accrue in the hand of a minority at the top.  Neither applies to public schools or the military.)

Given all this, it's important to rip the phrase "redistribution of wealth" back from the hands of the radicals. We need to spend money on public schools to have educated children. We also need to spend money on the military to have it be effective. Both of these things have the effect of redistributing money from one group of people to another, and both are ESSENTIAL to a healthy society and a healthy country.

So the next time some political radical asks if you are for the redistribution of wealth, politely reply, "I'm not a socialist if that's what you're asking, but I do believe in paying back some of what I've earned to make the country better for our kids."