 |
| Source:The Federalist Society- Cato Institute Fellow Richard Epstein. |
"The Federalist Society presented this panel discussion on Redistribution of Wealth at the 2009 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2009. Panelists included Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University Law School; Mr. Steve Forbes, Chairman and CEO of Forbes Inc. and Editor of Forbes Magazine; Prof. Jed Rubenfeld of Yale Law School; Mr. Andrew L. Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union; and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit as the moderator. Part 3 of 11."
If you go by the political definition of wealth redistribution, then you got this idea that it's about robbing the rich to give to the poor. But again if you know the actual definition of wealth redistribution, you know that it essentially means to take money from one area to give to another. And if done right, you take money from an area that has a large surplus of money to give to an area that doesn't have enough.
To use as examples- building schools, military bases, roads, bridges, etc, is wealth redistribution, because you are taking money from New York to build a road or bridge in Alabama. (Or use whatever two states you want to use) Or if people are unemployed and are collecting Unemployment Insurance, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to give that money to people who are unemployed.
Or with Social Security and Medicare, you are taking money from people who are currently working, to help finance the retirements of people who are retired.
These are all forms of wealth redistribution and if you are against these things, then you would be in a small minority. And even in a small minority in the Republican Party.
The question to me is not whether we have wealth redistribution or not, because of course we do and have always had, the questions for me would be, how much of it should we have. And what we should be using it for.
Since wealth redistribution is usually talked about in how it relates to poverty, I'll focus on that in this post and go from there and to start out I'm not in favor of taking money from the rich or anyone else, to take care of the poor.
What I am in favor of is using some of this revenue, to help the poor empower themselves to become self- sufficient and that gets to temporary financial assistance, education, and Job Placement, things like Welfare to Work (or TANF) as well as retraining low-income workers on the job so they can move up in their company's and not be stuck working dead in jobs their whole lives.
We should also be retraining unemployed workers so they can can get jobs in other fields, especially if they lost a job or in a job in a field thats gone and is not coming back as a result of free trade or company relocation. And doing all of these things cost resources and the money has to come from somewhere.
And I rather take that money from America then borrow it from Russia or China.
It's not a question of whether we have Wealth Redistribution or not, because of course we do and we've always had, but it's a question of how much wealth redistribution we should have. And what's the purpose of it and how we can best spend this money that will do the most good for the country.
