Much depends on how the rich man obtained his wealth; if he devised and developed a product, invested his savings and time bringing it to market, employed people to make, distribute it and sell it, and takes on all competitors ruthlessly but legally and on a level playing field he is a wealth creator.
If he started in the same way and then persuaded his government to create regulatory hurdles preventing competitors from entering the market he will be richer, but he will be the leech (he will also be the sort of businessman the left prefers and encourages of course).
Redistribution, means taking from one and giving to another. It is a soft word for theft.
Its architects, like to focus on where the money is going as a justification for the action of theft.
But the truth is the money has to be taken from somewhere in order to alleviate the symptoms(not causes) of poverty.
In order to mitigate the truth that the act of redistribution is theft, the architects say, how is it justice, that someone has excess and another does not have enough. They then term redistribution as fairness.
There is a big difference between saying that a rich man should, morally speaking, give to the beggar, and saying the beggar has a right to demand money from the rich man.
Do you have a right to someone elses wealth?
Take two people, both have incomes of 10,000, one saves 1/2 of that each year for retirement, and the other spends all their income. The Government decree's that 10% of someone's wealth saved in a year must go to people with no wealth to help the gap between rich and poor.
Both the saver and spender have earned 100,000 over 10 years, but because the spender doesn't save, he is considered poor. In total the spender has received 105,000 and the saver only has 45,000 in savings instead of 50,000.
This cannot be fair, as the saver is punished for saving, but it is being justified as fair! The saver has less to spend than the spender, but has to give the spender some money.
Also the saver, must finance the 'poor' person because of their choices, although responsible for the poor persons choices, the saver has no control over them in return.
This example is simplified and not 100% accurate as you usually do not get taxed on your savings. But if you are a saver, your income tax comes out first, before it becomes savings, and you are taxed on interest from savings.
Redistribution is bad for economy if you are protecting one part from the elsewhere, it makes that part flabby and inefficient and the population end up paying more.
It can be done privately,
Everyone should remember their daily bread does not come from government . It comes from companies and in a recession we depend on business to employ us so we can pay taxes and help those who genuinely need it . The best system of wealth redistribution is the job market, not income support, tax credits etc.
Government crowds out the chance of giving, as it already gives to those that would be given to, and money taken off those that would give.
We would prefer to redistribute our way, in the way that we think it should be done. Not in the governments interests and methods.
Quote by Ayn Rand from “The Dead End,”
"If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism."
We need to remove all programs where the government forcibly took property from one citizen and gave to another.
Progressiveness - saying anything that makes the poorest better off relative to the rich must be “a good thing” this is is morally dubious. Under this moral framework, one should celebrate a Budget which sees the incomes of the poorest 20 per cent fall by 5 per cent so long as all other groups are made worse off by 6 per cent.
We can equate entitlement of money for work with entitlement of grades for study. Would you give everyone equal grades?
There is no answer to what everybody should have. - single world answer MORE
Leads unstable policy's.
"Any solution to inequality means a huge and intrusive organisation of government" Randy Barnett (LLF13)This organisation will be enormously dangerous and could eventually lead to a gross miscarriage of justice.
Whatever level of redistribution Government force will be required to stop liberty from unbalancing the social justice.
The idea of rewarding desert is impracticable.
There is not a fixed group called “the poor” and another called “the rich”.
Over our lifetimes there is mobility in incomes, people have children, move from full-time to part-time work and back again, and live in various housing tenures.
Policy changes which might look “regressive” actually can be far less so when you examine their effects across whole lifetimes. VAT affects poor more than rich. But at a given point in time, poor could be people between jobs or students. Across a full working life, VAT tends to affect income groups proportionately.
Inequality generally is much lower than if you look at the population at one point in time. In other words, much of what is held up as “worrying inequality” is actually a reflection of people being at different stages of their life-cycle.