Perhaps we should also go into the fact that “redistribution of wealth” is just a buzz word being used by conservatives as part of their rhetoric of moral superiority? We’ve been “redistributing wealth” for the last 30 years, through economic and business policies which favor big business, corporations and the wealthiest Americans, while deprivileging workers and the middle class. Since Reagan took office, the top 1% of our population of have gone from controlling 24% of our nation’s overall wealth to controlling 34% of our nation’s wealth. That is also a redistribution of wealth, and I would argue that those who have benefited from that redistribution of wealth are often the ones who vote for it to keep happening.
Trade increases the wealth of both parties. It is not zero sum. It is distinctly not redistribution of wealth. When you buy something, it is because you would rather have it than the money you use to buy it. Likewise, the individual selling it would rather have the money. Tax schemes, however, are primarily interested in taking the money (not stuff) from one individual and giving it to another. Such redistribution is zero sum. Actually, it’s worse, because some gets used up running the tax system. You are right, of course, that politicians use it as a buzz word. It’s not like Bush didn’t redistribute wealth. Spending under Bush increased dramatically even when you control for war spending. All such spending is redistribution of wealth and does not necessarily increase the overall wealth (though it could).
Also, there is a lot of existing tax law that unfairly benefits certain parties. You’ll see it as a talking point (yes, by conservative talking heads) that the US has the highest corporate tax rate. This, of course, ignores the millions of tax exemptions for many businesses. Many large businesses get to end up paying no income taxes because of so many exemptions. This happens while a third of your paycheck disappears. That is redistribution of wealth. Small businesses also often get screwed, though this might be due to insufficient knowledge of the many exemptions. Until recently (yesterday, actually), I had to pay cash for my health insurance while many get their health insurance through their employers due to a huge tax incentive. This is also a redistribution of wealth. I think it is better to simplify the tax code than it is to add more exemptions to balance it out.
Of course, that’s not always the case, because obviously the majority of people in the red states (many of them being in the bottom 80% who control only 15% of our nation’s overall wealth) are not really benefiting from these policies. However, when the party that has been branded as being the party of the issues you do care about (religion, guns, being a “good” American) says that only wastrels and lazy bums take “government money,” well, you’ll join in the chorus against raising taxes, too…even if it means that you and your children’s standard of living steadily degenerates in the face of labor policies that favor employers, not employees. Even if it means you don’t actually benefit from the tax policies you support.
I couldn’t actually say whether those voting one way or another benefited from the policies they voted for. I certainly benefit from government policy. In fact, I make sure to position my portfolio based on whatever party is in control and what their policies are (though you might be surprised at how small the changes need to be based on which party is in power). Sometimes, I benefit the most from the most wasteful government policies. That doesn’t mean that society as a whole wouldn’t benefit more without such policies. It doesn’t mean that I would vote for such policies, either. I’m fairly confident in both my market analysis and my other employment prospects. I can vote for the candidates and policies I think will be the biggest benefit to society. I don’t think that makes me stupid or hypocritical. I could be wrong.
The funny thing is, though, that if we had better labor policies, or if companies were holding up their end of the “business can make everything better” bargain and were taking care of their employees as they should, we wouldn’t be reaching the point where 60% of Americans (including, yes, some of those fervent red staters) think we should have government-subsidized health care or where many Americans are interested in more government spending in order to improve their own lives. If big business were really the great savior so many make it out to be, we wouldn’t feel like we need the govnerment. (And on some issues like health care and education, I feel like this sense of need is very real.)
What you might think of as “better” labor policies often have unintended consequences, such as increasing unemployment or reducing economic mobility. Given that laws are drafted by lobbyists and not even read by our representatives before voting, I don’t have a lot of faith in most reforms actually achieving their goals.
I think this isn’t about where you want wealth redistributed, though. I think it’s about whom you want to rely on to meet your needs. And for the millions of Americans who feel like businesses and the market aren’t meeting their needs and are becoming progressively less able to meet their needs, those Americans are beginning to turn to the government instead. If the market were actually providing what people needed, they wouldn’t turn to the government. And that’s not a moral failure. It’s a market failure.
If this was true, then couldn’t you have all such government services be a pay-per-use? There’s no need for a taxpayer backstop if it was just a failing of big business. That’s why I fail to see how it is an issue of who you rely on to meet your needs (trusting business vs. government). It is very clearly a desire to have one person pay for another person’s benefit. I am reminded of the doctor who tried to provide health care at a reasonable cost to the unfortunate. The market tried to solve the problem via a rather noble entrepreneur. His billing scheme was declared illegal because the state decided he was an insurer. This is not a market failure. This is a moral and government failure.
