I've been trying to get informed about politics lately so as to be able to make an informed decision in the upcoming election. I figure if I'm gonna vote I may as well know what on earth is going on and what my options are...
Simultaneously, my first major assignment in my writing class was to write a quick one-page paper that makes and argument. The papers are not masterpieces, just quickies to give the professor an idea of what he's dealing with in his students.
In light of a recent interview I saw between Bill O'Reilly and Barack Obama, I chose to write my argument about income redistribution. I'm not sure I agree with myself, but I haven't satisfactorally answered my own questions brought up in the paper, so I thought I'd post it for all to see (that is, the select few that occasionally check this recently scant blog.) What do you think? Am I off base in my concerns? Why?
Without further ado:
Income redistribution has recently arisen as a topic of debate. Proponents of the system suggest taxing the rich at a considerably higher rate than others in order to reallocate their wealth to the lower and middle classes. Income redistribution, although noble in its aims, is not just. This oft-nicknamed “Robin Hood” procedure seems like a great way to help the less fortunate, but, like its namesake, eventually boils down to stealing from the rich.
There are many wealthy people in the United States. On the other hand, there is a large contingent of Americans that fall under the poverty line. Many have suggested that the rich can afford to be taxed more heavily in order to assist the under privileged. To tax the rich at a greater rate than others, however, reeks of theft. Those voluntarily giving to the poor should be lauded for their altruism, but if a mob were to come and take money from them, even if the mob were to give its spoils to the poor and hungry, it would turn the “givers” into victims. Onlookers would be outraged to hear of such an event and would rightly clamor for justice.
Similarly, if the middle and lower class were to decide to forcibly take money from the upper class, although through democratically chosen and seemingly legal taxation, does not the same ethical problem arise? The rich cannot be forced to “donate” their money to others, no matter how needy the poor may seem. It is their choice to do what they please with their property.
Simply put, the rich cannot be over-taxed to benefit the lower and middle classes. We are beyond our rights to impel them to give aid if they are not willing to do so. Income redistribution, no matter how much it helps, cannot be ethically upheld.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Good thoughts. In essence, the system becomes a lot more like socialism with too extreme redistribution.
Any thoughts about what might be the better solution?
It seems like you're developing a different moral argument than that of theft. Theft is theft irrespective of whether or not someone takes a lot or a little from you. By using that comparison of theft, arguably all taxation is theft, just if the rich are being taxed more heavily they are being more greatly wronged. But I do think the idea of justice that you were developing does approach the problem better. Of course there does seem to be some problems with reconciling the ideas of equity and equality, or the ideas of economic equality or equality of opportunity, but that's the root of this problem from forever. I feel like the standards on which our country were founded, and therefore should govern the way we as a people legislate such, seem to espouse the idea of equality of opportunity, but others have their own opinion on it. I guess either way though, really a lot of it depends on how we are as a democracy which allows us to adopt whatever issue or stance we please, although the Constitution does make things difficult in some cases.
Since I am not any long timer on this issue... do you mean that you think rich people should not be taxed more, or do you think they should not be taxed more for the express purpose of aiding the poor? Just wanted some clarity.
Hmmm...you mean I have to clarify my position? Blast.
Really, I'm not sure exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the latter. I recall Obama talking about how great it was that the rich could aid the poor and I thought "Wow, that is really cool. I wonder what the rich people think about that?"
Hi, interesting line of reasoning and I can kind of see where you're coming from. It may seem wrong at first to forcibly take money form the rich to give to the poor, but first you have to realize that most government money does not go directly to the poor (although maybe it should). Taxes go to road maintenance, police services, schools, etc. These benefit all of society, including the rich. Also, over 50% of the budget goes to the military - way more than is necessary! Maybe instead of arguing about services to the poor, we could cut out some wasteful military spending AND cut taxes?
As for whether or not it is obligatory for the rich to give money to the poor, I highly recommend the article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" by Peter Singer. He writes about the issue in the logical, convincing way only an experienced philosopher can.
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915%28197221%291%3A3%3C229%3AFAAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3
Post a Comment