Talk:Redistribution of income and wealth

Social Security

The article states, "In addition to [Social Security] having a progressive tax rate..." This is just flat out incorrect. One might call Social Security a progressive benefit, it does NOT have a "progressive tax rate," according to the IRS: https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/thm03/les05/media/ws_ans_thm03_les05.pdf

Whoever wrote that conflated a progressive program with a progressive tax rate. They aren't the same thing. This entire article likely has similar bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.22.27 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

To further support this claim, the National Bureau of Economic Research has done studies to suggest that the amount of wealth redistribution with Social Security may not even be a progressive benefit:

https://www.nber.org/digest/may00/social-security-does-not-redistribute-income Jglastetter (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Redistribution of Wealth is a Political Assertion, Not a Neutral Observation

The myth of wealth redistribution is used to politically attack government welfare programs. It implies that government intends to make wealth more equal by taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". However, that is never the case.

A progressive tax system distributes the costs of all government programs according to wealth. Each program has it's own purpose, such as building and maintaining public roads, providing a public education system, or assuring those living in poverty have adequate food, clothing, and shelter. There is no government program that intends to redistribute wealth.

The "wealth redistribution" concept is used to imply government is following some nefarious plan to equalize the rich with the poor. The claim is false. Yet it plays into a rhetoric that may sway some voters.

The article on "redistribution of wealth" needs to cast the concept in a neutral fashion, noting its context within political myth.

The above is irrelevant and has no sources

The above has no sources, and is just a stream of irrelevant opinions and unsupported claims. The section is trying to push a political agenda, and that does not seem appropriate for wikipedia.

Some Proposed Changes

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Redistribution of income and wealth

Add to bottom of second paragraph of article: Tax law and consumer law are the main two areas in which the government can participate in redistribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cf2022 (talk • contribs) 02:58, December 22, 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi @Cf2022: I have added an unsigned template to your comment. In the future, please use four tildes (which look like ~) to sign your name after every talk page comment. Also, I removed the History section that you added onto the talk page; the discussion was archived, not deleted, and can be found at Talk:Redistribution of income and wealth/Archive 1. Thanks for using the request edit template. Please post below if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Cf2022 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

Cf2022, I'm declining to enact this edit. I have not read this article before — I am distinctly unimpressed, although that's often the case when it comes to economic articles. I won't spend much time going through the shortcomings of the article but will concentrate on the proposed edit. I will emphasize that I am not an expert, and I welcome input from experts, but I think the claim is false. if you start with the (admittedly simplistic) notion that redistribution involves a transfer from group A to group B, tax law relates to the "from" but not the "to", which is typically the subject of spending bills including so-called welfare bills, so while I agree that tax law is one of the important aspects of redistribution, claiming that tax law and consumer law are "the two main areas" ignores one of the biggest and possibly the biggest area. In addition, while a case can be made that consumer tax law plays a role in redistribution, it beggars belief that it's one of the top two areas. talks about nine different areas (and doesn't even mention consumer tax law). While you might be arguing that it not only belongs in the list it's one of the top two, but a much better case also needs to be made and I will be stunned if it's really one of the top two areas. It looks to me like someone wanted to write about consumer tax law and decided to characterize it as an important aspect of redistribution. I'm not persuaded, and at a minimum would need to see multiple articles from experts in the field supporting this notion before even considering accepting the claim. It might well be that a discussion of consumer tax law deserves a section in an article about redistribution, but the notion it's one of the top two areas doesn't seem likely. In addition, it sounds like a nuanced argument that might be well-deserved in an otherwise well written article, but I think this article has too many flaws to be talking about the addition of a minor point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)