4 of 6

Write now Article Tools

Balancing wealth among classes is not an end in itself. Wealth should be distributed among those who earn it, based on how productive they are. This is the basis for a capitalist society. Redistribution of wealth through means of coercion and force (taxes) is not in anyone's long-term best interest. While many argue that man should be selfless and altruistic, there is no honor in such ideas. If everyone is selfless and altruistic, then everyone will be miserable. If I give up what I have rightfully earned to someone less deserving, and they, in turn, pass it along to someone else, and this cycle continues, then no one benefits. If I keep what I rightfully earn, and the next person keeps what he rightfully earns, then we both are happier for it. We can then each choose to distribute that wealth as we see fit, through purchasing products and services we deem of value. We can also choose to give that money to those we think deserve it through charitable contributions.

Many would argue that if wealth is not forcefully redistributed, then only a small group of people will ever have large sums of money, and the rest will be left in the "poor house." This is not the case. If a person leaves an inheritance to an undeserving heir, that heir will quickly squander the money away (hence the phrase "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations"). That money will be squandered in the marketplace, and be earned by other men more deserving. On the other hand, a deserving heir will use that money wisely, will invest it to increase that wealth (whether in their own business or in the businesses of others), and will, as a secondary effect, improve society by producing better or more diverse products. This benefits everyone, even though the heir was only acting in his or her own best interest. In either situation, wealth is eventually held by those who deserve it and have worked for it.

One of the biggest problems with the forced redistribution of wealth is that it provides no incentive for those receiving undeserved wealth to work harder (or work at all). If someone receives enough money to meet their basic needs without putting forth effort, then what incentive do they ever have to put forth effort? When a person is responsible for their own well-being, they take pride in the work that they do, as they know that they are doing what is necessary to provide for themselves. If raises and increased benefits are available to them, they will put forth more effort to reap greater gains.

Another problem with forced redistribution of wealth is that it is immoral. if a poor person steals from a wealthy person, even if it is in order to feed his or her family, it is considered a crime and they are punished. However, if a government body forcibly takes money from a wealthy person (which they do through taxes), and gives it to a poor person (which they do through welfare, food stamps, and similar programs), that is considered a perfectly acceptable, and even progressive, social program.

Forced redistribution of wealth causes many more problems than it would ever solve, and will inevitably lead to the types of problems that we have in this country today. Businesses are propped up by the government when they should be allowed to fail by forcibly taking the profits of other businesses. People are allowed to mooch off of other people through government looting. Neither is beneficial in an enlightened society, and both are detrimental to America's future.

Learn more about this author, Cameron Chapman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Commentary: Balancing wealth among classes key to America's future?
We want to hear your view. Write now!