why is there such a negative connotation to the word "redistributionist"?

[UpsideDownFlag]

i was listening to Rush the other day, and this guy was arguing to him that the minimum wage should be raised to 10 dollars, and that it would be enable by lifting the rich's tax cuts. rush's response:

"you're just another one of those redistributionists". is redistributing tax money really that bad? what do people the Social Security is, or medicare?

[Syrinx]

1. does Rush exxxplain why it's cool to steal from the poor?

To give to the filthy (and I use that word advisedly) rich?

[xray s]

4. Yeah!

The conservatives have no qualms about redistribution as long as its the rich or corporations getting the distribution (as demonstrated by the Enron employees that were gleefully redistributing the savings of California grandmothers to Bush's pal Kenny Boy by "sticking electricity rate increases up their asses".)

[jjmalonejr]

2. They don't like Social Security or Medicare either...

...and seek to end them when the time is right.

[onecitizen]

8. Can't forget the US Postal Service.........

and public schools.

[K-W]

12. They basically already have. Look at the national debt.

Its a nice little time bomb.

[TexasSissy]

3. Soc. Security is not redistribution. You're getting back $ you paid in.

Except for SSI, I think.

I never heard it called redistributionist before, but I guess that means the same thing as communist or socialist. All have negative connotations in a democratic, capitalistic society.

I'm against redistributing wealth. But I wouldn't call having a living wage as the minimum wage being redistribution.

[Yupster]

6. Social Security is certainly redistribution

You need to study up on its formulas.

It's based on what are called "bendpoints".

Without going to my offie to get my formula book, I'll use approximate numbers.

If a person's average salary was $ 5,000 per year, he gets 65 % of that as his FICA benefit.

If he made 25,000, he only gets 25 % of the amount from 5,000 to 25,000.

If he made 50,000, he only gets 15 % of the amount between 25-50,000.

If he made 85,000, he only gets 5 % of the amount between 50-85,000.

The formula is incredibly progressive. If you put in twice as much as me, you do not get twice as much of a benefit as me. Not even close.

In that sense it is certainly redistribution, and rightly so.

___________________________________________________________

Another way it can be considered redistribution is between groups. '

The group that gets screwed the worst by social security is African-American males. Statistically, they work the most hours, yet are the least likely group to live to collect any benefits.

The group favored the most are white females, who work much fewer hours, yet live the longest under social security.

In that way, the system can also be called redistribution.

This one is not as justified in my opinion, as the first way.

I don't like redistributing money from A-A males, one of our poorest groups, to white females.

[TexasSissy]

15. I disagree.

When we pay FICA taxes, we don't all pay the same. There is a cap on the FICA taxes each year that a person pays.

If someone earns $100,000 a year, s/he does not pay FICA taxes on all of that. If someone earns $50,000 a year, s/he pays FICA taxes on all of it.

It may not be perfectly equal, but I wouldn't call it redistributing wealth, which would be taking from the wealthier and giving to the poorer. Any social program could be called redistribution in the strictest sense. Child credit deductions for federal income tax could also be called redistribution, in the strictest sense.

[Yupster]

20. Of course they all are

Why be defensive about redistribution?

It is completely necessary and justifiable.

We have many, many programs which redistribute wealth, and thank heavens for that.

[Kanary]

7. You're against it?

So, you'd like people to go off and die, quietly, of course?

Kanary

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phaseolus]

5. it's another conservative axiom:

namely, taxation according to their definition is pure & simple theft if it's used for one of the programs they don't like.

A school lunch for a kid from a poor family? Theft from a rich guy's hard-earned inheritance.

A multibillion $$ aircraft carrier that the Navy didn't ask for and says they don't even need to fulfill any possible mission? Fine and dandy, as long as it's mostly the middle class paying for it (because money rightfully belongs with the rich, who can't be expected to part with a higher percentage than anyone else.)

[Swede]

10. You can't mean community defense surely?

That's communism.

[Guaranteed]

9. Because that's how the rich people in control of the media use the word.

:)

[K-W]

11. Normalization mixed with a simplistic sense of fair play.

There is an idea that somehow this whole economic system we have is somehow normal. Somehow capitalism isnt an economic construct imposed on people, it is the natural way human beings deal with each other. Its impossible for capitalism to be unjust, because capitalism is the natural order of things. Add to that a kindergartners understanding of fairness and, wala. The idea that we should change the economy to give more wealth to people without wealth seems unfair and stupid.

In a world where nuance is a dirty word, it isnt exactly surprising that people fall for such idiocy.

[liberalpragmatist]

13. Because people associate it with taking their wealth

"Redistribution" carries negative connotations. Americans are mostly middle-class and many believe they are and/or aspire to be in the upper-class. They dislike the idea of taking their wealth and just giving it to the poor.

Of course, that's not at ALL what happens. What Democrats talk about are social services that benefit everyone and should probably benefit the middle-class as well.

But perceptions matter. I have no problem in rejecting a word like "redistribution" if doing so will allow Americans to look past the word and look at the actual actions we are talking about.

[rman]

14. well, it's bad for the rich

so it's to be expected that the rich and their appeasers will try and make it out to be a bad thing.

Moreover, the rich are also redistributing wealth, but they redistribute it the other way around: high incomes increase and lower incomes decrease.

[TahitiNut]

17. Totalitarian capitalism is all about "redistributing" the wealth created

... by labor. Think about it.

Ownership is, quite literally, an "entitlement." All entitlements are legal fictions of the state. This is the core difference between a 'right' and an 'entitlement': a 'right' is inalienable and an 'entitlement' is solely a function of government. Once upon a time, all land was "owned" by the monarchy. Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, all the lands in the Western Hemisphere were literally carved up as royal entitlements. (It made absolutely no difference whatsoever that there were indigenous people.)

The value of land (the wealth it represents) rests entirely upon the availability of labor. Farmland is worthless unless someone invests labor in planting and harvesting. Grazing land is worthless unless someone invests labor in herding and husbandry. No matter how land is used, the key word is use: labor.

The original 'argument' of capitalism was that private individuals should be able to 'own' their own land where they were entitleed to the entire product of their own labor. Capitalism arose from many centuries of abuse of the 'ownership' entitlement - abuses characterized by the 'ownership class' (who also 'owned' government; remember when only landowners could vote?) entitling themselves to the lion's share of what was produced on that land. When labor achieved anything above subsistence, the excess was called 'productivity' and the ownership class confiscated all of it under the rationalization that 'productivity' was an attribute of the property, not the laborer.

Times haven't changed as much as we sometimes think.

In the average S&P500 company, employees only receive about 1/3 of the value of their own labor. The rest is called (literally) 'management effectiveness.' (Longer whips are more 'effective.')

When 'owner' and 'worker' are identical, the distinction between the ownership share and the labor share of the product is academic. The fundamental tension of our times (and all times, as a matter of fact) is the proportional entitlement to the redistribution of wealth created by labor.

Class warfare? Ubetcha!

You better believe that the vast majority of the 'ownership class' are armed and fighting this war. Since they'r vastly outnumberd by the 'working class,' the only thing they can do is try to convince members of that class not to fight. They're very successful in doing this. ("Move along- there's nothing to see here.")

[dumpster_baby]

18. yes, and also.....

....I do believe that capitalism has a lot to offer as an economic system; I just think that the worker should get a lot more from it. I think that the citizens of a country in essence OWN the country, and that businesses should be forced to pay more "rent", that's all. But if you do that, the corporate media calls it socialism, and that has already been demonized so throughly that any mention of it triggers kneejerk reactions in most Americans.

One big problem is that the mass media does not allow truly leftist speech. We need another mass media, or we need to radically reform the one we have now.

We do have a new mass media, of a sort, but the internet requires too much reading to reach most Americans, and the good parts of it are too hard to access for most Americans.

What we need is cheap broadband that affords easy access to downloadable video, which could be routed via peer to peer networks like Kazaa. Then leftist voices could be heard, and the corporate media propaganda, like "redistributionism," could be effectively countered.

[TahitiNut]

19. A license to broadcast is an enTITLEment.

(D'oh!) Is it really so surprising that the Barons of Broadcast and their sharecroppers are aligned with the 'ownership class'?

The fictional image of the benign autocrat cajoing "his people" is still current. Paternalism. Authoritarianism.

Members of the working class are the most frequent 'traitors to their class.' Uncle Tom was NOT an anomaly.