How did “spreading the wealth” become a dirty deed?

We’ve seen what Socialism has done to other nations. Russia fell. Even now China is trying to build a society that is more capitalist and modernized in an attempt to be more like the U.S. and other world powers. Other communist countries, e.g. North Korea, has a very isolationist structure and the people truly suffer. I’d hate to think that we would want to destroy the free market, capitalist society of promise and opportunity that made us the world power that we have become. Although it is true that the Bush Administration has not been good to the development of newer technologies, the removal of incentive that would be created by Obama’s vision would be far more devestating.

Beside the wealthy who would change their lifestyles, consider who else would suffer from such a philosophy of wealth redistribution.

- Businesses would try to improve their income stream by:
Downsizing (increasing unemployment)
Increasing the price of their product (increasing inflation and making
the product less competitive)
Increasing automization
Eliminating some product lines
Going overseas ( I could see Microsoft leaving the US all together)

- Individuals would also try to compensate in order to maintain their way of life by several methods:
Decreasing their charitable contributions
Increasing their workload and spending less time with community service
Finding new opportunities, which nowadays could include leaving the US
to other pastures where their skills could be better compensated (a
lost of the brain trust).
I’m a physician from Illinois where malpractice has made medicine
marginally worthwhile as a profession and I could see myself
chucking the field in favor of doing something else I would enjoy
more (and put less at risk) such as teaching. But the community I
serve would suffer.

It should be reiterated that Obama’s tax plan is not socialist nor is it new. And it should also be reiterated that the wealth distribution he speaks about is one of the tenets of capitalism. And it should also be reiterated that what “Dr. T” details here is not part of any sort of Obama plan, nor has it been proven that any of these things occurred as a result of any “socialist” plan now or in the past. Thanks.

Even if Obama’s plan was socialist, which it’s not there’s a difference between socialism and communism. Russia fell because it was communist, not socialist.

I think a lot of people have the idea that socialism and communism are the same thing. Dr.T in the comments here is a good example of someone who misses the point entirely by pointing out soviet Russia and parroting a few of the typical (though not usually provable) arguments for low social spending.

“Socialist countries” include many of the world’s wealthiest and most successful nations. Places such as the UK are at the low end of socialism, while the Scandinavian countries are at the high end and regularly rank as having the world’s highest standard of living. Canada is in the moderately socialist and also does quite well.

Frankly, Obama isn’t much of a socialist anyway. This is only another unfortunate scare tactic to join the “terrorist” label as the GOP continues to associate their opponents with all of
America’s enemies past and present.

There are different definitions of “socialism”. Communists refer to themselves as “socialist” sometimes. Nazis called themselves socialists, I’ve no idea how. Scandinavian countries have generally been governed by parties that call themselves socialist, and that model seems to have worked. A West European definition of socialist looks pretty good right now. Lower debts, better health care, productive economies with more effective social safety nets, … please explain the bad part. It isn’t obvious.

Psychologically, people who want to identify themselves as “conservative” must ritualistically from time to time denounce “communism” or “socialism” and apply those terms to anything they do not like or understand. Just like in the 1930′s, programs like Social Security, the Agricultural Adjustment Act (nowadays just call the Farm Bill), the Securities Act, the Federal Housing Act and the FDIC were all denounced as communistic or socialistic, the 1960′s Medicare and the Great Society were so denounced and now Obama’s tax plan. Just because it reverses the huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts to them, it’s called wealth redistribution when the tax system is adjusted to stop such abuses. Like stopping tax breaks to offshore corporations who close factories and move production overseas. That’s “wealth distribution” because it denies the American owners the right to exploit overseas slave labor.

Ms. Priesmeyer is somewhat disingenuous in her quotation from Adam Smith. The context of the discussion in “Wealth of Nations” is that the poor spend the greater part of their incomes on the necessities of life; the rich on life’s luxuries – a concept that Ms. Priesmeyer would no doubt agree with. Smith goes on to say, however, (and put the quote in context) –

“A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

In other words, Smith is suggesting something very similar to the Fair Tax, a tax on consumption, which would necessarily fall heaviest upon those who had the most to spend and spent it. The tax is voluntary in the sense that one chooses how much to spend and what to spend it on. That is a far cry from the Obama coercive tax approach: Government actively identifying classes of people and businesses and taking money from them because they have it or because they do not follow government policy that is not in their best interest.

In this discussion, Smith assumes the people’s wealth belongs to them, and the government taxes their voluntary use of that wealth for the purpose of covering public expense, i.e. provision of public goods that provide for all equally, activities like police, fire, sewage systems, and the like. Obama assumes government authority to tax for “fairness” and to expand government beyond provision of public goods to private benefits for some in the name of “equality.” Those are two very different concepts.

If Ms. Priesmeyer is going to quote Adam Smith, she ought read the “Wealth of Nations” and not just Google “Brainy Quotes.”

You are making a huge assumption that what Smith was referring to was something like 21st century Americans call “rent” and that the “house rent” was something the wealthy paid and did not receive as their source of wealth or income. I think it is arguable that Smith meant “house rent” in the ancient meaning of “rent” as the feudal dues paid by tenants and cottagers on estates or in the way economists mean “rent” as the income from land. In 18th century England, the wealthy were predominantly landowners who exacted their wealth from the cottagers and tenants who lived on their estates according to feudal privileges attached to land ownership. So Smith, it is fair to say, was advocating a tax on wealth not on consumption.

[...] Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » How did “spreading How did “spreading the wealth” become a dirty deed? Of all the criticism lobbed at Barack Obama over the last week, the one that gets [...]

[...] Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » How did “spreading Yet somehow the idea of sharing wealth — the idea of the United States as a republic run by people instead of corporations — has become something borne of Marxism or socialism [...]

[...] Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » How did “spreading Yet somehow the idea of sharing wealth — the idea of the United States as a republic run by people instead of corporations — has become something borne of Marxism or socialism [...]