Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read
Vote Obama, I need the money.
I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a Obama 08 tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10, and told him to thank the server inside, as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
July 17th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I found some interesting numbers at the tax foundation.org. The bottom 50% of income earners only pay 2.89% of the total tax burden. The effective tax rate is approximately 3%. Judging from your pathetic tip, I’ll assume you are in the bottom 50%
of that $10, your tax burden would be $3. (your server, since that $10 was most likely after tax income for you) According to your chart,
SS: $.63, Nat. defense: $.57, medicare: $.42, income security: $.39,
health: $.30, interest: $.27, education and social services: $.09, transportation: $.09, vet benefits: $.09, other: $.15.
Considering this person is homeless, I’m not exactly sure what government money he is getting anyway. It was your $10, and you made a choice. I guess he got $10.09 total ($.09 social services and $10 from you?) Maybe health, and definitely nat. defense, too.
Furthermore, your $10 was after taxes. Your server incurred a tax burden of 8% of your bill, whether he actually got 8% or not. So, his tax contribution to the homeless man may actually be more than the $3. Whether you gave it to the server or homeless man, the server was responsible for taxed income for YOUR lunch. He’s not the one bitching about taxes. Maybe he thinks 3% is fair. And maybe he gives him $1 everyday.
What makes you think $10 is what the service you received at lunch was worth anyway? That’s what it was worth to you. 15% is an arbitrary number based on the 8% of sales. It is worth (could be) something else to your server, his employer, and other diners.
Would you prefer going home and preparing the same meal for yourself? For most people that work, that is an impossibility. So I think that I can argue that his job makes your job possible, and vice versa. I think that is also a pretty good argument for wealth redistribution. Unless of course you would REALLY rather be self-sufficient and join the amish Community.