Lately I've grown quite weary of the term "redistribution of wealth" in the context of a desired solution by some (myself included) to the obscene growth of income inequality over recent years. What I take issue with is that the term "redistribution of wealth", to me, seems to imply the desire to blindly take from the rich and give to the poor. Sort of a modern day Robin Hood, if you will. And that is certainly the way the rich/GOP/Right portray the intent of that term. While it's true that my desired ultimate outcome is that the very wealthy will have a little less income/wealth and the poor and middle class will have a little more income/wealth, I have no desire to take wealth away from the wealthy as some sort of punishment to them. That is not at all the point. If interested, follow me below the burnt orange croissant and I'll explain myself.
The core of what I, and others, want is simply an even playing field. What we want is to end the system which allows the wealthy to play with a deck that is ridiculously stacked in their favor. Or put another way, and even more important, is my desire to end the current system which forces the poor and middle class to have to play with a deck that is ridiculously stacked AGAINST them.
Tax breaks, tax loopholes, legions of lobbyists, access to very creative accounting/accountants, access to good education/training, self-written legislation (ALEC), legal immunity, etc., etc. are the things that stack the deck in favor of the wealthy. Cutting food stamps, cutting unemployment benefits, curtailing rights to unionize, rising cost of higher education, cutting public education funding, reducing women's reproductive rights, limited access to affordable healthcare, etc., etc. are the things that stack the deck against the poor and middle class. Actually, strike that last one about limited access to affordable healthcare! :)
And the insult to injury in all this is that despite having all those exclusive privileges, many of the wealthy still insist that their financial success is exclusively the result of their superiority in the areas of hard work, ambition, and intelligence. Which means they simultaneously suggest that all others' lack of financial success on that same scale can only be attributed to their LACK of those attributes. Keeping with the "stacked deck" theme, I'll end with an analogy I always think of on this topic:
An extremely wealthy person and a middle class person are playing five-card draw against each other. The wealthy person doesn't have to ante. The middle class person does. The wealthy person gets dealt 8 cards. The middle class person gets five. The wealthy person may discard and redraw as many cards as he wants. The middle class person can discard/redraw none. The wealthy person gets to keep his cards hidden. The middle class person must play her cards face up. The wealthy person may barrow as much as he likes in the event his chip pile shrinks. The middle class person is allowed to play only with her original chips. The wealthy person ultimately wins the poker contest and loudly insists that it is his great skill and strategic prowess which resulted in his lopsided win against his middle class opponent.
What I want is a fair game. Then let the chips fall where they may.