Blogs » J.Q. Tomanek of Victoria » Redistribution of wealth


What exactly is this? We hear it tossed around. From one corner, it is the words that produce a knee jerk. “What? That is redistribution of wealth and I will not tolerate it.” Granted this is typically heard coming from a fiscal conservative in reference to some liberal social program. I can give it that, it is in this sense a redistribution of wealth.

My thought is not so much aimed for or against a particular social program in this post. Rather, I suggest that everyone wants redistribution of wealth, unless of course you are completely self-sufficient. The argument is not “Is redistribution of wealth good or not?” The real argument is “Which process or method of redistribution of wealth is better?”

Take a stereotypical liberal social program. This process starts with taxing some people and then taking that tax money and giving it in some form or fashion to others with less. The flip side is “This is my money, I earned it, I get to decide how to spent it.” This appears at first sight like a non-redistribution of wealth scenario. However, in reality it is redistribution, just a different form. In this case, you get to decide how you are to redistribute it. Even if you save it in a bank, you are still allowing the bank to use this money to make more money through lending and someone is going to make money off your money.

What is the point? The point is using the right label or term when making an argument. I am not arguing which way I think is better or worse. That is another blog post for a different time. How would I label it? Perhaps “Liberal distribution” vs. “Market distribution,” I don’t know. What would you call it?