How is "Redistribution of Wealth" going to fix our ailing economy?

I am not one of the people that will be paying the higher taxes, so I am not writing this because the Obama's new Tax Plan aka "Wealth Redistribution" will hurt me, because it will not. But it will hurt the people that are responsible for the ebb and flow of my Local and National Economy.

I am currently having a debate with a friend of mind about "Wealth Redistribution", he states that "The US has been redistributing wealth since 1913 and we've had tons of growth during that last 95 years, haven't we?" Now, you must know that my friend here, is also a "Clintonite" that thinks that the "Clinton Era" was the best administration ever for the economy, even though I have showed him numerous reasons why Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, produced the 1990s Boom, but in fact, Reagan's Tax Cuts actually Increased Federal Revenues.

Well I guess in his broad "terminology", he's really good at that, using broad terms that is, than I would have to say ,yes, quote unquote, in answer to his question. In all actuality we have "technically" always redistributed the wealth or at least since 1913 anyway,..... but, BIG BUT here, I could use the same "terminology", and say that I redistribute the wealth everyday with my purchases at the supermarket, gas station, drive thru's etc... So "technically" this is considered a "Voluntary transfer of wealth" is it not? Case and point there are different types of "Wealth Redistribution".

With our current system of Capitalism it is done with voluntary purchases and the sale of goods and services, which in fact makes it make sense for America to have a tax, such as the FairTax which is based on consumption, not on what you make. With a comsuption tax than even the low lifes like drug dealers would still have to pay taxes (But thats another blog for another day).
With Communism and or Socialism "Wealth Redisribution" is done using non-voluntary methods such as over taxation..... i.e. taking from the rich to give to the poor, or aka, taking from the hard working to give to the non-hardworking,

To me this type of "Wealth Redistribution' is no different than having to pay more for the same services rendered because you make more money. Remember that the same Small Businesses that are now going to be taxed more are the same Small Business that provide services and products to the average consumer, you and me. When their taxes go up, than their bottom line goes up, do we really think that they will absorb that additional cost? No absolutely not, they will pass it on to us the consumer, So once again the average citizen gets the raw end of the deal. While the low income/no income people just sit back and reap the benefits.

Okay, for instance, here's a scenario:

Lets say you make $150.000K a year which puts you in a higher tax bracket, so you will pay more taxes under Obama's new plan. Some of your expenses include let's say , your child's daycare or private school, which is probably about $200.00 dollars a week, lets use that number for the sake of argument.

Now lets say this daycare/private school falls intothe category that Obama now makes pay more taxes so their taxes go up as well. Taxes go up, bottom line goes up ,and now they start charging you say,$250.00 a week.

Then lets say, that once a week you and yours have your favorite place to dine not an overlu expensive place, but a nice place none the less. But, guess what they too are now taxed more as well, and their prices go up, so to absorb their bottom line, your typical $60.00 bill just went up to $75.00, which of course made the tip go up...........and it goes on and on, and this, my friend is called "involuntary redistribution of wealth".

So now you have paid more taxes and you are now paying more for Daycare/Private School, Food, Gas, etc. etc.. So, you are making $150k a year and you now pay more taxes in addition to paying more for the things that you need and a small luxury like eating out. But, hey don't you feel good because all that money you used to have wen to the Government to help the low-income/no-income , so they can have their subsidized daycare that your taxes are paying for, so they can get help from the government for their groceries that you taxes are paying for, so they can get an average check back from the I.R.S. for around 3k a year, that your taxes paid for, and they keep having babies and that check goes up every year, and your taxes paid for them to do just that, have more babies and get more money from the government. It doesn't matter that you cannot afford to have any more children, responsibly, but your sure going to pay for theirs, the children they continue to have, unresponsibly of course, but once again your taxes paid for it and because of this they can now afford to go out to eat even if you can no longer afford to eat out yourself.

So my question is, how is that fair?? And where does it all end? What if the proposed taxes raised aren't enough to cover the nations debt, what then, do we tax the rich even more , where is the cap,.... where is the stop loss? We, the taxpayers, are currently on the hook for $700 Billion for something that the majority of the population did not cause. In fact the same Government that allowed this to happen has put us on the hook. Funny how we don't see Dodd and Reid digging in their pockets to help out.

The liberal Left and the Conservative Right will continue to argue and disagree on the Wealth Distribution question, and my friend seems to be looking at it the way the left does and I on the other hand am looking at it the way the right does. However non- partisan Economist J.D. Foster, Ph.D., said it best when he said " It’s harmful to the economy, some people think it hurts more and some people think it hurts less. If you tax productive activity, and lower the (financial) return for productive activity, you get less activity. That means less work effort, less investment, less entrepreneurial activity, (and) fewer jobs being created as a result,” that is what economist J.D. Foster, Ph.D. told CNSNews.com.

I find it hard to believe that Obama has changed much since his interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. In this particular interview he discussed the Supreme Court's role in redistributing wealth. Robert Alt a former student that had Obama as a professor stated that "these liberal propositions, are not unusual for Obama, while neither acknowledging the radicalism of the underlying premise nor stating whether he agrees with it. ". Obama stated this about the Constitution "It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.".....DO WHAT???....that’s like a Christian saying that the bible does not say what God "must do" for them, so they are just to assume that God "must" grant their prayers, yeah that really makes sense, NOT!!

The Liberals and the Conservatives will take what they want from this interview and turn it to their advantage, we all know this, its all up for interpretation,. None the less, you cannot change the spoken word. One persons comment on the Transcript from this 2002 interview was very well put when they said....."Freely translated, he (Obama) is saying the Warren Court was not activist enough to suit him and that he is not sure the courts are really structured or intended to bring about, for example, economic change through the courts - but he would like to see it happen if he could.". ...........and I myself couldn't agree more.

John Adams once wrote,
"When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny."

and even better..........

James Madison once wrote;
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...."

Wikipedia has many definitions of "Forced Transfer of Wealth" which include, Welfare, Nationalization, Taxation and Socialism.

Milton Friedman, was an American Nobel Laureate Economist as well as a public intellectual, famously argued that the Karl Marx slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" actually turns ability into a liability and need into an asset.
Critics also argue that such measures will result in a brain drain and lead to a state where the middle class have to support a large population of unemployed and working poor with an
ever-increasing percentage of their income. They also believe that income redistribution creates a dependency culture and a society that is not meritocratic. Milton Friedman was hailed by "The Economist" as "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it", in their article, "A Giant among eonomists".

Linda Chavev of Townhall.com wrote an article shortly after Friedman's Death in 2006 "Friedman was the most influential economist of the last half of the 20th century. His ideas influenced presidents and prime ministers, transformed monetary policy in the nited States and informed ordinary Americans' understanding of the free market."

We can only hope that in an effort of "Bi-Partisanship" that Obama does a little more research outside of his left leaning analytical alliances and is able to see just how damaging this "Redistribution of Wealth" can be do our already severely ailing economy.

Don't worry; I won't get my hopes up, or I might get my blood pressure up,LOL :-)

Originally posted at www. WomenForTruth.info