Is it better to give than to receive?

by Brian Balfour, Civitas Online, December 3, 2013.

The following chart is from a recent report produced by the Tax Foundation that examines the government's income redistribution via tax and spending policies. Interesting findings include:

• Federal and state tax & spend programs take roughly $2 trillion of wealth from the top 40% of income earners  and give it to the bottom 60%.
•  For an even more specific breakdown, the top 20% of income earners had $1.9 billion of wealth taken by state and federal governments, of which just more than $1 trillion went to people in the  bottom 20% of income earners.
• $2 trillion is nearly 1/8 of the entire U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)
• Also according to the report, the average family in the bottom 20% of income earners receives on net about $27,000 annually in fed & state government benefits. (This naturally fuels the cycle of poverty, as families dependent on government benefits make the rational decision not to accept marginal increases in work and/or income for fear of losing far more sizeable gov't benefits. This is by design, in order to maximize gov't dependency and keep poor people poor, and as such increase political power as each election cycle candidates can instill fear among voters that their opponent will "take away" their gov't benefits.)

Clearly, wealth redistribution is alive and well in the US. For those concerned about the influence of "money in politics," you may want to start with this chart.

And of course, when government redistributes wealth, it is done through the threat of force, and is a zero-sum game (with clear winners and losers). Does anyone realistically think that such a massive program of forcibly taking from some to give to others can result in anything other than social animosity and tension?