Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is an idea, part of the Robin Hood folk myth, that has been ingrained in our culture. We love to root for the "good guy" - Robin Hood - while we revile the Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisborn. And that is as it should be. However, we can change the terms just a little bit - make Robin the government that raises taxes on the rich to help the poor and make the Sheriff and Guy the politicians (I swore to myself I wouldn't use any modern names in this first bit) who want to keep the money where it is, and suddenly Robin isn't the good guy anymore.
Effectively, Robin Hood is redistributing wealth to the bottom 90% of Nottingham. This redistribution is exactly the kind of thing that Republicans have been slamming Barack Obama for even suggesting in attack ads for the past few weeks. Ever since I saw the first ad, I have been disgusted by them.
Redistribution of wealth is not a bad thing. It would allow us to ensure that in our society everyone has a decent standard of living because, let's face it, not everyone in America has a decent standard of living.
I know this is political heresy and I will never be able to run for office in this country after saying it, but those people who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" to become part of the higher echelons of society should be taxed to allow others to attempt to pull themselves up. The fact is that 99.9999999% people who live in poverty aren't living in poverty for lack of a will to work hard or to get a job, they just cannot, under current economic and social conditions, make enough to propel themselves out of poverty. That needs to change.
America needs to tax it's more well-off citizens to provide universal health care, daycare for children, etc. Civic virtue plays a role here. Those better-off should help those not-so-well-off because it is their moral duty to do so, not because it benefits them economically (oh no, did I just invoke morals? I thought only Republicans had those!).
Many people assume that the poor are taken care by not-for-profit organizations and volunteers. Unfortunately, there are nowhere near enough volunteers and nowhere near enough money in non-profits to fix the huge problem of the class-gap between the very rich (who just seem to be getting richer) and the very poor (who just seem to be getting poorer) in America today. Volunteerism doesn't cut it. The government should stop using non-profits as its scapegoats, step up, and take responsibility for its own citizens.
A government's first responsibility is to provide for and protect its people. We are currently failing the most fundamental mandate of any just government. America could do with a little redistribution of wealth, and since money is power, if we redistribute the wealth back to the masses, if we take from the rich and give to the poor, then we, the people, get back the power.
And that's exactly what the rich and powerful are afraid of.
1 comment:
My other favorite argument for the social welfare state, besides the moral imperative, is the very simple fact the Europe realized: if you keep entrenched wealth protected, the people will rise and by force of arms threaten the status quo. Conservatives instituted social welfare states to prevent armed socialists risking government, and to prevent elites from turning to fascists for protection from armed socialists.
Social welfare: moral imperative and good for stability!
Post a Comment