I am not a religious man, just logical and analytical to a fault. Those who already are well off seem to consider "redistribution of wealth" an evil thing, and they may be right. I believe that "redistribution of opportunity" is a much more logical goal. Let’s set compassion and humanity aside for a moment and look at this from a greedy perspective.
Most of the wealth and power in this country comes from (or came from in the past) some sort of enterprise or business. The success of business and enterprise depends greatly on the economy and the consumer. In order to consume, an individual needs to have a certain level of financial success. The more success the more consumption. The economy itself gets it strength from the people, and the more poverty, the more drain on the economy. So, my point is that a redistribution of wealth is a good thing for the wealthy, unless you are only concerned with the extreme short term.
However, I am not an advocate of simply moving money around. I am not a big fan of welfare. Individuals who have a degree of financial success contribute to the economy, to society, and to the strength of America. There are many paths to financial success, but unless you inherit money, two things are absolutely necessary – potential and opportunity. If you are now wealthy, then either you or someone in your family (past or present) had potential and was given opportunity. Most likely, living in America helped to provide the opportunity, so one could say that you owe a debt that can be paid by making sure other Americans with potential have the same kind of opportunity.
I do not believe that any financial class, race, geographic location, or nationality has a monopoly on potential. There is just as much potential in the ghetto as in places like Beverly Hills. But, there is a world of difference in opportunity. Reading this, you may be thinking now "oh, here it comes – Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action!" But that is NOT what I am talking about.
If I had to sit down and design a system that would make the wealthy more wealthy and the poor even worse off, I would fund education from local property taxes. Is that now how most public education in this country is funded? If we really wanted "no child left behind," then we would ensure that the per-student funding for education was equal across the country. Funding should be equally divided, at least at the state level.
Immediately, I can hear the Beverly Hills resident saying "Why should my property taxes pay for education of students in Watts??" The answer is because it is good for the country, good for the economy, and in the long run, good for your own bottom line. Of course, it is also the right, humane, compassionate, and just thing to do, but I contend that is is also the logical, reasonable, and even greedy thing to do!