Redistribution Of Wealth Analysis

There are many different ideologies in regard to how to deal with poverty in America. One such ideology is the redistribution of wealth. This idea is predominantly held by liberals, and on the surface it may sound like a good idea. However, so far it has proven to be ineffective. As a long term plan the redistribution of wealth will do nothing but harm the economy, and as a result the American people. Not only is it ineffective, but it is also immoral. The redistribution of wealth is most certainly not the answer to the problem of poverty in America.

On January 8th of 1964 President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty (Tanner). Since then 15 trillion dollars have been spent on welfare programs; and the US national debt sits around 18

trillion dollars. During this time the poverty rate has never dropped below 10.5% (Tanner). Current systems do not help those in poverty get out, if anything they trap people in. Welfare programs have become a drug to the impoverished. They are dependent on it, and cutting them off immediately may cause more harm than good. As this continues more people will become more and more dependent on welfare. This could cause us to enter into a depression worse than that of the 1930’s if the stock market were to collapse; or some other similar economic catastrophe.
The US should be implementing programs that educate people and help them climb out of poverty; while slowly decreasing spending on welfare programs. The best way to deal with poverty is going to be helping people to learn how to help themselves.

Not just throwing money at them. Philanthropist Charles T. Munger says “To get what you want, you have to deserve what you want. The world is not yet a crazy enough place to reward a whole bunch of undeserving people.” The redistribution of wealth is also not a sustainable option. The wealthy do not have an infinite amount of money to draw from. As the number of people on assistance continues to increase the entire system will become unsustainable. Private charity would be a better option than the government redistributing wealth. First of all, it is voluntary. This would require that the US Government to lower taxes. People are much more likely to donate to charity, if they have more money to give. The redistribution of wealth can seriously disrupt the economy, and the best way to fix that problem is to move into a free market. When the free market is brought up people often think about trickle down economics. This is ironic because trickle down economics violates the economic premise of supply and demand. With trickle down economics the government is deciding what companies should thrive, not the market. In a free market there would be more competition, and as a

result more jobs. This would reduce the number of people that would require assistance. Currently once a child turns 18 and moves out of their parents house, the parents are no longer responsible for the child. With that in mind how can one say it is the responsibility of the people to support strangers who won’t even help themselves. It also drags down the rich, and we need the rich to help move the race forward (Carnegie). A lot of people sympathize with children who live in poverty, and rightly so. Parents should lose custody of their children they can not support them. Not just for the economy, but also for the good of the child. Rarely are people able to improve on their social class, not because of a lack of opportunities; but because they were never taught the skill set to achieve success. There are plenty of innovative ways we could deal with poverty. One such way is to make orphanages for kids who's parents can't financially support them. The orphanage would have private educators that taught core subjects, as well as self development. Humans learn by spending time around other humans, so if they grow up in an impoverished family they are likely to develop the same habits and mindsets that held their parents back from success. This should be a non profit, and not run by the government. This is just one of many ways we could fight poverty without relying on the government stealing from its people.
The redistribution of wealth is not the answer to poverty.

There are plenty of innovative and moral ways that would be less costly and more effective. Fighting poverty should be about the conjoined effort of the people, and not about government

intervention.