Making a Case for Redistribution of Wealth

Americans who aren’t totally absorbed by finding friends on Facebook, the latest gory episode of “The Walking Dead” or “Dancing with the Stars” may be trying to comprehend the real meaning of Obama’s proposed “redistribution of wealth” agenda and how it will affect their lives. Not a problem.  Redistribution is alive and well and already in place. It’s simple to explain when you think about it!  There are two parts to the Robin Hood approach of taking from those who have and giving to those who don’t. 

Look at the much publicized Romney tax return issue now playing out in Presidential politics and the mainstream media while U.S. interests in the Middle East burn, our nation slips further into debt and hardworking Americans are giving up their search for jobs.  A recent Tampa Bay Times article stated that Gov. Romney’s family reported a total income in 2011 of $13,709,608 while paying $3,012,775 in taxes to help pay for out-of-control entitlement programs.  Add his charitable gifts of $2,250,772 which we must assume some of which went to the needy.  Compare that with Obama’s family reporting a 2011 income of $844,585 (and a hell of a lot of Air Force One and paid vacation perks that even Romney doesn’t get) and tax bill of $10,694 plus charitable gifts of $172,130.

When you add it all up, Obama redistributed only $182,824 of his personal wealth to the American way of life compared to Romney’s personal contribution of $5,263,547. Do the math!  That means Romney gave over five million dollars more to the people of America than Obama; $5,080,723 to be exact, all while Obama continues to demonize millionaires for not paying their share.  On top of this, the mainstream media continues to lambaste Romney for being a self-made millionaire and, get this, for giving needy Americans more money in taxes and charitable contributions than Obama.

But wait a minute, there’s more!  Look at two sample groups of Americans making up the earned income versus the combined local, state and federal tax burden.  For example, the poorest 20 percent of Americans make an average yearly income of $13,000 earning 3.4 percent of the total income in America and pay only 2.1 percent of the nation’s total tax burden.  On the other hand, the top 1 percent make 21 percent of all income and pay 21.6 percent of all taxes.  Stay with me now – this same “poorest” 20 percent tax group pays 17.4 percent of their income in taxes while the wealthier 1 percent group pays 29 percent.  More is better? Right?

Many low-income workers don’t pay any Federal income taxes thanks to a series of tax cuts endorsed by Republicans such as the 1975 Tax Reduction Act, 1986 Tax Reform Act, 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, and 2001 Bush Tax Cuts.  When it’s all said and done, we have one candidate for re-election championing an even more severe redistribution of wealth by calling for higher taxes for the rich and more entitlement benefits for the poor.  The other candidate promotes rapid growth of small business through less taxes and fewer regulations and, yes, even encourages everyone to earn more taxable income. Conclusion?   Those who earn the most, do the most to support the people of America through taxable income. 

Playing the tax-rate “them versus us” blame game is far too complicated for campaign rhetoric and media sound-bites.  It’s more clearly understood when you begin at the top comparing the Presidential candidate’s personal redistribution plans.