Redistribution of Wealth
Posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2009
by Rose-Marie Chaperon
Chaperon Consulting, LLC
Wealth may be described as an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches, maybe yet, the state of being rich. Yet about 25,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations (Brenn, 2009). This is one person every three and a half seconds. Unfortunately, it is children who die most often. Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. The problem is that hungry people are trapped in severe poverty. They lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves. Being constantly malnourished, they become weaker and often sick. This makes them increasingly less able to work, which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. This downward spiral often continues until death for them and their families.
In America alone, homeless statistics show the number of homeless has remained stubbornly high. Between five and six hundred thousand people are considered "homeless" at any given time - without a "permanent, safe, decent, affordable place to live" (Susan Barrow, 2003).
Homelessness in America persists in part because many urban areas remain economically depressed, housing costs have risen rapidly in the past decade, and wages for lower skilled workers have remained stable. According to a December, 2000 report of the US Conference of Mayors, single men comprise 44 percent of the homeless, single women 13 percent, families with children 36 percent, and unaccompanied minors seven percent. The homeless population is about 50 percent African-American, 35 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Native American and 1 percent Asian.
With all these issues related to homelessness in America and the world we still have millionaires and billionaires throwing their money away on unwanted things, yet we still have people in the entertainment business who waste more money than anyone else because the money they do not know the value of hard work.
There are many ways for the world millionaires and billionaires to help with America's poverty. According to government figures, 1-percenters' share of America's total income is the highest it's been since 1929 prior to the 2007 recession, and their tax rates are the lowest they've faced in two decades. Through bonuses, many 1-percenters will profit from the $23 trillion in bailout largesse the Treasury Department now says could be headed to financial firms. And most of them benefit from IRS decisions to reduce millionaire audits and collect zero taxes from the majority of major corporations (Sirota, 2009).
But what really makes the ultra-wealthy so fortunate, what truly separates this moment from a run-of-the-mill Gilded Age, is the unprecedented protection the 1-percenters have bought for themselves on the most pressing issues (Luisa Kroll, 2009). To review: With 22,000 Americans dying each year because they lack health insurance, Congress is considering universal healthcare legislation financed by a surcharge on income above $280,000 -- that is, a levy almost exclusively on 1-percenters. This surtax would graze just 5 percent of small businesses and would recoup only part of the $700 billion the 1-percenters received from the Bush tax cuts. In fact, it is so minuscule, those making $1 million annually would pay just $9,000 more in taxes every year -- or nine-tenths of 1 percent of their 12-month haul (Sirota, 2009).
We are all created equal; yet, throughout human history, the rich - those with abundant resources - often forgot about their brethren who were poor and in need of assistance. In most societies, the poor were viewed as "strangers" - the outcasts of society - ignored even by relatives and fickle friends. As King Solomon wrote: "Wealth makes for many friends, but the poor person becomes separated from his friend" Fairness should mandate of the rich to share their resources with those in need. Even those with limited resources are obligated to share what they can. In other words, you don't have to be wealthy in order to give. I believe even a poor person who is supported through the government's help should be obligated to give to another person.
With that being said, I am well aware that America is a capitalist country, would communism work in America? Maybe not! if human nature is basically egoistic, then communism doesn't work. If people are basically selfish, then they won't work for the common good, and there will be a tendency to freeload or otherwise take advantage of the system. For communism to work in that case, you would you need to make sure that everybody was doing their fair share. You would need a system of "points", to make sure everybody is doing their part. People then work to earn points, so that they can justify receiving their share -- or else they don't get their share, or they go to jail, or they're kicked out of the community, or some other fascist reaction.
Would capitalism work or is it working? Capitalism is also a value-point system, with the "points" being capital. Therefore, capitalism works for the rich because it only shows the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer while they are still starving. It is my belief that people aren't bad, but they are by nature selfish. I believe that people, like all animals, are organisms with a genetically programmed desire to prosper, reproduce, and expand. What we see as altruism in people is an evolved sense of mutual benefit -- I help you, you help me, we both prosper. Should the wealth be shared amongst the poor, I would say yes to a limit.
This Article has been viewed 274 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.