Quote:
|
Originally Posted by realchef
Now, as much as it pains me to read Obama's plans, aren't his tax proposals actually geared around levelling the field; taking some of the advantage down to the people?
|
Bingo!
Wagner: Here are a few past examples that could fit in the category of "wealth redistribution"....
Integration of the schools (sending poor minority kids to wealthy white areas to attend school, even though their families did not pay the higher taxes which funded those better schools) -- certainly this was an attempt to "equalize" the quality of education kids were getting
Having a public school system (forcing wealthy people to pay taxes to fund schools for poor people who don't pay any taxes). Is this fair? How about we just have private schools and everyone pays for their own kids to attend.
Having a public fire department (same as the last example -- why should rich people pay to fund a fire department that puts out the fires in poor neighborhoods. How about we allow the "free market" to take care of this sector and have private fire companies and everyone pays to put their own fires out. If you can't afford it, too bad) Or will you argue that having this service to put out fires is an "entitlement"??
"Universal Service Fund" - if you have ever paid a phone bill, you paid this -- it's one of the taxes they charge on telephone service. This tax went to subsidize telephone service in rural areas where there weren't enough customers to make it profitable for the telephone companies to run telephone lines. So instead of rural folks having to pay $1000 per month for telephone service, everyone else paid taxes so that they could have more affordable phone service -- "wealth redistribution" for certain.
These are just some examples. If you are in favor of any of these programs, then you are indeed in favor of "wealth redistribution", at least in some circumstances.