The term is too cozy. Too many people think there is nothing wrong with it. It is little wonder, because the term can have perfectly innocent connotations. The term "Redistribution of Wealth" just does not get to the heart of the matter. It does not meaningfully describe what it is attempting to address: taking from people who earn and giving to either special interests or large voting blocs. Or just plain legalized theft. Worse, the term when used by free market advocates simply plays into the collectivists hands because of the terms coziness.
"Redistribution of wealth" can mean, for example, a father who splits his money among his family members. That would be a perfectly legitimate exchange. Same thing with someone who gives his money to charity or personally gives his money to poor people or in one kind of trouble or another. I am no history expert, but it seems very likely that socialists/collectivists/statists/etc took these kind of legitimate exchanges and used them to sugarcoat their schemes.
It is time to get tough and stop helping them with their window dressing. Suppose a bully on the playground took your lunch money and gave it to his friend? What would you call that? Suppose a man came to your house and robbed it, but then gave the money/goods to his family or someone else? Would you call that "redistribution of wealth"?
How about using some terms with more bite; like "Theft by proxy" or "Pretend Generosity", "Coercive Redistribution", "Generosity by force", "Forced contributions", "RobinHoodism", "So what if you earned it, shut up and give up", "wealth by voting", "profits by campaign contribution", "bellyachers more important than producers/earners", "bellyachers more moral than producers/earners", etc.
Maybe come up with some of your own.
How about "Deproductivization of Capital"?
That would be technically accurate, but it has no emotional or value judgment bite. Doesn't hit you in the face.
"from each according to his ability to each according to his need."
You are absolutely correct! It should be called what it is - "Confiscation of Wealth"! No need to reinvent what is already taking place.
Those who use the term ""Redistribution of wealth" fall right into the Marxist trap of acknowledging their most popoular fallcacy about the economic system:
"The interventionists and the socialists contend that all commodities are turned out by a social process of production. When this process comes to an end and its fruits ripen, a second social process, that of distribution of the yield, follows and allots a share to each. The characteristic feature of the capitalist order is that the shares allotted are unequal. Some people--the entrepreneurs, the capitalists, and the landowners--appropriate to themselves more than they should. Accordingly, the portions of other people are curtailed. Government should by rights expropriate the surplus of the privileged and distribute it among the underprivileged. Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods. The products come into existence as somebody's property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation." (Mises -http://mises.org/humanaction/chap32sec1.asp) It is remarkable how the Conservatives have contributed more to Socialist fallacies then the socialists themselves. In one way or a another, all the alleged anti-socialists and pro-markets have also contributed to socialist propaganda by acknowledging, often out of sheer ignorance, their most effective fallacies. Any opponent of the alleged "redistribution of wealth" should be challenged to use the term "confiscation of wealth" instead. If he does not, then he should be called for what he is - a socialist!
"The interventionists and the socialists contend that all commodities are turned out by a social process of production. When this process comes to an end and its fruits ripen, a second social process, that of distribution of the yield, follows and allots a share to each. The characteristic feature of the capitalist order is that the shares allotted are unequal. Some people--the entrepreneurs, the capitalists, and the landowners--appropriate to themselves more than they should. Accordingly, the portions of other people are curtailed. Government should by rights expropriate the surplus of the privileged and distribute it among the underprivileged.
Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods. The products come into existence as somebody's property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation." (Mises -http://mises.org/humanaction/chap32sec1.asp)
It is remarkable how the Conservatives have contributed more to Socialist fallacies then the socialists themselves. In one way or a another, all the alleged anti-socialists and pro-markets have also contributed to socialist propaganda by acknowledging, often out of sheer ignorance, their most effective fallacies.
Any opponent of the alleged "redistribution of wealth" should be challenged to use the term "confiscation of wealth" instead. If he does not, then he should be called for what he is - a socialist!
bloomj31: "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."
This is also a sugarcoated term, used by them. When used by us, it helps them.
Kudos to DD5....
"Confiscation of wealth" is a better term, as it implies force. However, even that can be used to describe a just action. For example, the police/security/you confiscates stolen wealth from a thief. The term needs to imply something illegitimate, as well as imply force.
I always liked Ayn Rand's "looters."
Yes, Looters is good, but it is a noun that is a label for a kind of person. Unfortunately that word comes after a great deal of analysis in Atlas Shrugged. I do not know if the average person will see the connection.
We need an adjective which describes what this kind of person does. Should definitely have some teeth to it.
There is a slippery slope here. Suppose someone proposed a 0.25% sales tax on any sale taking place in a community to "support our schools". Most people, even those without children, would say, "Yes, I believe our schools should be supported, and this is a relatively painless way to do it", thus, not objecting. Today our sales taxes are 9.00% on most sales. During the early period in Egypt, eventually, the tax was 100% on everything, the money going to the king (Pharaoh), who would "redistribute" the stored grain to all of the people during the "lean years". Where do you object? When do you object? How do you object? How effective can your objection be?
If we all agree that certain things (schools, government, defense, etc.) need funding, and voluntary gifts don't do it, or not enough, anyway, what method can be employed that will provide the necessary funding for everyone's common goals? The fairest method is a single excise tax on all sales above the equivalent value of a single ounce of gold for which the collector (the seller) receives a portion to provide for the cost of collection, graduated from one ounce of gold to 1,000 ounces of gold (minimum 0.01%, maximum 50%), thereafter held at the maximum rate for all sales, including of property. No other tax or imposition should be applied to income, or inheritance of property, or any other activity except sales. The government is then responsible for distributions to local, state, and united states government activities. The universal vote will provide for giving the government our opinion of their distributions. This will be "the tax" (as in "plus tax"), and no other need apply.
Any tax will redistribute value (not wealth, which is an abundance of valuable goods) from producers to users. The preceding sounds fair, if we can keep the government from expanding the limits to take value from the poor (sales below the value of an ounce of gold) or to take it all (no more than a 50% tax of 1000 ounces of gold maximum). That is certainly not a sure thing.
Samuel Clemens:If we all agree that certain things (schools, government, defense, etc.) need funding,
But we don't all agree. Perhaps you missed this point. So what way other then confiscation are you left with in order to continue to fund your government schools? None.
Samuel Clemens:The fairest method is a single excise tax on all sales
So how you buy your food in the grocery store is not fair according to you? Or how you pay for the shoes for you kids.. that's also not fair?
Sam, this is a discussion of rhetoric and how it should be framed. You are going off in a tangent of what you feel to be a pragmatic solution for taxation and how to make it as least painful as possible.
Thievery?
RogueMerc:The term is too cozy.
Good point. How about plain, "theft"?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I've always been a fan of Bastiat's "unlawful plunder," from The Law.
I did say "If..."; but read my post again; the tax does not take effect until valuation reaches the value of one ounce of gold, currently ~$1,100.00; pretty fancy pair of shoes, if you ask me! (see I said "if..." again).
I disagree with the rhetorical term "wealth", which is defined as an abundance of value. I certainly disagree with taxing income, and other valuations of the poor to middle-class.
Samuel Clemens:I did say "If..."; but read my post again; the tax does not take effect until valuation reaches the value of one ounce of gold, currently ~$1,100.00; pretty fancy pair of shoes, if you ask me! (see I said "if..." again).
Who picked 1 ounce of gold?
I thought I did. Why not one ounce of gold? It prevents the poor from being taxed at all. Back in the day when the dollar was defined as one twentieth of an ounce of gold, people earned a dollar a day. Not too bad for unskilled labor.
Samuel Clemens: I did say "If..."; but read my post again; the tax does not take effect until valuation reaches the value of one ounce of gold, currently ~$1,100.00; pretty fancy pair of shoes, if you ask me! (see I said "if..." again).
How did you come to this conclusion? It seems rather arbitrary to tie taxes to an exchange that is valued more than an ounce of gold.
Samuel Clemens: Any tax will redistribute value (not wealth, which is an abundance of valuable goods) from producers to users. The preceding sounds fair, if we can keep the government from expanding the limits to take value from the poor (sales below the value of an ounce of gold) or to take it all (no more than a 50% tax of 1000 ounces of gold maximum). That is certainly not a sure thing.
This doesn't make any sense. How is "Value" redistributed. Value is purely subjective to the individual's involved. You will have to define your terms since you are using them differently than commonly used in AE.
Also, why is the preceding "fair". Who determines what was fair?
Samuel Clemens:I thought I did. Why not one ounce of gold?
Isn't that a dictatorship when one person decides for the many? just wondering...
Samuel Clemens:It prevents the poor from being taxed at all.
I thought you said this:
Samuel Clemens:I certainly disagree with taxing income, and other valuations of the poor to middle-class.
I thought you didn't like valuations "of the poor...", but then you made an evaluation of who is "poor" defined as those not getting "taxed at all" in your program.
Samuel Clemens:Back in the day when the dollar was defined as one twentieth of an ounce of gold, people earned a dollar a day. Not too bad for unskilled labor.
Again, somebody other than the market defining what a dollar is, that's all that is. And btw, what is "unskilled labor"? How is that determined and somehow correlated with a certain wage?
Samuel Clemens: I certainly disagree with taxing income
All taxes are income taxes. Taxes in all forms and styles are always imputed backwards to affect only incomes.
So are you against all taxes now?
Bastiat's terms "false philanthropy and legal plunder" seem a most fitting substitution for the negative connotations of "redistribution of wealth" .
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther