Should we "Redistribute the Wealth"?

So Barack Obama made what is probably the biggest error in his campaign when, just before the final presidential debate he told "Joe the Plumber" that his tax policy will "redistribute the wealth." Or words that John McCain took to that effect.

But why shouldn't we redistribute the wealth? Sure, this is a militantly capitalist country that is supposed to bow at the altar of unfettered markets. But we still need some government, do we not? Some services are provided for the public good, to the benefit of civilization. Roads, for example. Public safety, for another. Most would agree that public education is a good thing, and some would argue for expanded publicly-funded healthcare beyond Medicare and Medicaid.

OK then, why should the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor?

The most compelling case, in my opinion, is that unfettered capitalism has created a schism between the rich and the poor, and that it is the oppression of the poor by the wealthy that has driven the poor to need more governmental services.

Business owners move jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor. Employees are put out of work, and put in greater need of assistance, in hopes of boosting corporate profits. If the government is taking on more responsibility while corporations and their executives are getting richer, should the rich not assume a greater portion of the tax burden?

Likewise, many corporations, among them "big box" retailers, keep a part-time work force in order to avoid providing health benefits to their employees. These employees are forced to postpone health care services, which invariably increases the cost, and rely on medicaid or charity care when they do seek services. Shouldn't those who send employees into the arms of the government in order to increase their own profits ultimately be held to pay for the increased cost of providing those services?

The basic tenet of Republican economic policy is that allowing the wealthy to keep their earnings will spur investment in the economy. This will result in job creation and a "trickle down" of wealth to the poor and middle class. The problem? It doesn't work that way. The wealthy keep their money to themselves. Today we see the widest earnings gap that we've seen in 100 years - since before any sort of labor protections were put in place. Today, after 8 years of the Bush Administration, the economy is in the worst shape that it's been in since 1992. Coincidentally, 1992 was the end of 12 years of the Reagan/Bush policy of promoting "trickle down" economics.

Wealth does not trickle down. Providing tax breaks to the wealthy is nothing short of class warfare.

So yes, we must redistribute the wealth. If business owners are rewarded for cutting jobs and wages, that is exactly what they will do in a market-based economy. If jobs and wages are cut, the economy will stall and more people will be looking for government assistance. Therefore tax policy must penalize those who would unfairly benefit.

But perhaps it's more simple than that. On The Daily Show, John Stewart was much more concise. He pointed out that the Bush administration tax policy were effective in "redistributing wealth" from the poor to the very rich. Obama's policy would simply start to bring things back to where they were under the Clinton administration.

By all means, lets have the rich pay a greater share of the tax burden.