History Shows Redistribution of Wealth Is Path to Failure

Big government controls, it does not produce.

Emotions are running high and passion is running hot as decisions are being made by government panels and elected bodies. With a decision being made public to not make Briscoe Field into a major hub for air travel by a citizen panel, the question still lingers as to how the elected commissioners will respond on the issue. With the election being held in the middle of a long hot summer (July 31), we can expect that the emotions and passions will run even higher and hotter as the issue of voting another tax onto the already over taxed citizens comes to the final tally on Election Day in Georgia.

On the national level, the election to select our next President is already being predicted as a divisive matter. Many people believe the issues to be jobs and the economy. While it is true those issues are major, I contend those issues are symptoms of the real issue.  The real issue is deeper and rooted in a basic ideological position.

We are facing decisions at almost every level of government today regarding the position of free-market capitalism as opposed to a stronger centralized government. Government does not produce, government controls. The citizens produce. As the producers, the citizens must be allowed freedom to risk, invest, work, and harvest their product.

There is a strong government ideology which truly believes government must control the way everything is done in culture. The stronger the government, the more freedom is lost by the producers and providers. One of the ways centralized government controls is by taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers. I admit there are needy people in every culture. The true needy must be attended. The strong centralized government crowd wants to create a larger and feebler needy group in order to exact more from the producers to take care of the non-producers.

Is the government's goal to take wealth from the free-market producers and redistribute it to the non-producers? Tell us in the comments.

With this mindset we have redistribution of wealth from the free-market producers to the government in order to dole out the handout to the non-producers. With that worldview in place, after several generations there is a dependence upon government to provide all one needs from the cradle to the grave. History has proven the outcome of this position to be catastrophic. Even with historical evidence being known on this issue, we continue to have people arguing for more government control and more confiscation of wealth from one group to give to another group in society.

In this election cycle, we will hear promises of job creation and making our nation more successful in the years to come with a strong economy. These are just window dressings. The real issue is the type of government mindset put in place to achieve those lofty goals of jobs and a sound economic footing. From where I stand, we need leaders who will allow for free-market capitalism with smaller government in order to be successful in the years going forward.

Follow Ray Newman on Twitter @RayNewmanSr

rhelm May 08, 2012 at 07:34 PM
Brian Crawford May 08, 2012 at 08:19 PM
If you'd like to go down the list of the 400 families that control most of the wealth in this country I can assure you that few of them have produced anything in years. Most of their wealth has been accrued by gambling in financial and real estate markets. What has someone like Donald Trump ever produced for that matter. The greatest downward redistribution of wealth in our country occurred in the years directly following WWII. It's what built the middle class and turned us into the world's lone superpower. Republicans began reversing this more equal distribution of wealth 30 years ago and look what it's gotten us; chronic unemployment and a broken economy.
Brian Crawford May 08, 2012 at 08:31 PM
It also never ceases to amaze me Ray, as someone who claims to be a minister of The Gospel, how disconnected you seem to be from Christ's central message. The first church was described in Acts 4: 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. 36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet. Shouldn't God's grace compel all of us to be redistributors of wealth?
Kristi Reed (Editor) May 08, 2012 at 08:46 PM
God also gave us the following: 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Genesis 2:15: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it" Psalm 128:2: "You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessings and prosperity will be yours." Proverbs 18:9: "One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys." 1 Timothy 5:8: "But if someone does not provide for his own, 12 especially his own family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12: "to aspire to lead a quiet life, to attend to your own business, and to work with your hands, as we commanded you. 4:12 In this way you will live 12 a decent life before outsiders and not be in need."
Brian Crawford May 08, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Indeed. God expects everyone to contribute based on their ability. No argument there. He does however expect us to share our prosperity with those less fortunate.
Ray Newman May 09, 2012 at 01:39 AM
Sharing and giving to the people in need has always been part of the response of followers of Christ. As we understand the needs of others personal responsibility always works best as the person with more shares with those who have little. Government edict did not require that choice in the Acts passage listed. Christians have given more than any other group of people on earth to those in need and continue to do that to this day, without being required by government to comply.
Brian Crawford May 09, 2012 at 02:46 AM
Right, but if you believe we are the first Christian nation in history shouldn't our government reflect our Christian values? I assume you believe we're a Christian nation? You can't have it both ways.
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew May 09, 2012 at 03:34 AM
Brian are you recommending that we eliminate the separation of church and state? You've made a compelling argument to that effect in your replies...
Brian Crawford May 09, 2012 at 04:28 AM
Nope, not recommending that. I think we've got it about right. I do however believe that most of our founders were Christian people and I certainly believe we were founded on Christian principles. It's hard to deny that. We all have a voice in our government. Shouldn't Christians promote public policy and elect officials that reflect the most essential parts of Christ's message? Especially those who claim authority to proclaim The Gospel?
Kristi Reed (Editor) May 09, 2012 at 09:48 AM
What faith commands a person to do and what the government commands a person to do are two separate issues. Using Christian principles as a basis for supporting a welfare state is not only wrong, it is also inaccurate. The redistribution of wealth Ray mentions in his column is not about supporting those truly in need. No one would oppose that even if people differed on how it should be accomplished. However, when you continue to increase government control, add people to the government dole who are not truly needy and reduce societal expectations regarding the value and necessity of work, you create an unsustainable system in which those that produce are punished and will eventually stop producing. Ray is absolutely correct, the results of that -- as history has shown -- are catastrophic.
North Georgia Weather May 09, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Again... Brian has no argument. Very good comments from Kristi and Ray.
Ray Newman May 09, 2012 at 01:02 PM
The central message of God's Word is found in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." 1973 NIV. The separation of church and state is exactly what I support. Separation of church and state means the government cannot and must not force edicts upon the church. The state must not pay the salary of the ministers with tax money from the citizens. The church must however, stand strong on individual freedom, religious liberty and moral public policy issues. The church cannot and must not ever come to the place of forcing beliefs upon any person, but must remain firm in standing for freedom of speech, the press, and the right of the people to speak to the government leaders as all citizens have the same rights and freedoms. Being a Christian does not mean we loose our freedoms and rights to express our beliefs just as being a non believer in Christ means a person gives up their rights to free speech and all the other liberties. In the world of ideas and public policy we each have the freedom to express our beliefs and to live our value system without fear of being attacked or accused of being less a person because of the wordlview we live within.
Brian Crawford May 09, 2012 at 08:27 PM
John 3:16 is indeed the central message of God's Word but believing in Christ isn't like believing in the Easter bunny. Belief in Christ means believing in Christ's teaching doesn't it? While Christ never uttered a word regarding homosexuality or abortion, he did speak extensively on healing the sick and feeding the poor. Yet today I see many Christians vilifying the poor and blaming the sick for not being able to afford health care. This simply doesn't make sense to me. Christ's example was to equally distribute the wealth. He could have made a bundle selling loaves and fishes yet he chose to share equally with the masses. Shouldn't we as Christians seek to follow his example? Isn't this the morality that concerned Christ the most?
Brian Crawford May 09, 2012 at 08:36 PM
So is what you're saying is that you don't believe we're a Christian nation Ray?
Mitch May 09, 2012 at 08:46 PM
Brian I think you keep missing the point. We as INDIVIDUALS should strive to be like Christ, not form a government and FORCE others to do it.
Brian Crawford May 09, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Those are only separate issues if the person of faith has no say so in government. Shouldn't God come before country? This BS about punishing the "producers" is just that. The people who control the bulk of our nation's wealth are not producers, they're gamblers and market speculators, or worse, trust fund babies and heirs. If we took all of their money and kicked them all out, and gave everyone else free college educations and zero interest loans to start small businesses, we would see an increase in productivity like never before. Of course I'm not advocating anything that drastic, but a 50% tax bracket on incomes over a million dollars is entirely reasonable.
Brian Crawford May 09, 2012 at 09:11 PM
So doesn't it follow, if we as individuals who are striving to be Christ like are part of the government (as in We The People), shouldn't we be advocating public policy that is Christ like? How do you separate the two? That is MY point. As a Christian, should you choose not to participate in democracy? Because if you do participate, and you choose to support public policy that is not Christ like, then you are denying your faith,
Ray Newman May 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM
The Bible is fully inspired by God. As God breathed every word of the Bible then it is from the Trinity God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to say Jesus did not speak on a certain subject, when it clearly is in the Bible is to deny the inspiration of the entire Word of God. The Acts 4 passage that many like to reference was an inside church event. This experiment did not last very long, because there arose issues as to the full sharing of all receiving the same, when some of the people inside the church felt they did not get their share. The more generous way of helping the needy was giving generously and with joy to the full needs of those around the church inside and out as the need arose. Thus we have the development of hospitals, schools, orphan homes for homeless chidren, all of which were started by and continued to be supported by church and church members. Homeless shelters, housing needs all being met by Christians. Disaster Relief ministry that started with Christians reaching out to people in times of need, started in the Christian church. It was only when the government started being involved in these matters that trouble started. As long as the church is allowed freedom to help any and all people at the point of their need, without government forcing it to be done their way the money goes further and helps more people.
Ray Newman May 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM
The Christian life is a way-of-life. That is why I speak about public policy and seek to be involved in the structure of public policy so we can have the Chrisian lifestyle view point as part of the coversation. Living in the real world I have never nor will I ever deny my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Tammy Osier June 06, 2012 at 04:34 AM
In the book of Acts, the scripture is referring to believers sharing amongst themselves so that they could unbound in sharing the gospel.Then, after the tithe, they gave freewill offerings which the church used to distribute to the poor that will always be among us. Note: Freewill offerings - not compelled. Government is not always made up of godly men. There is a reason that the principle of not eating if you don't work is mentioned. Freedom requires responsibility. The whole purpose of faith and giving was to teach others to have faith in God, their provider. If they receive with nothing required of them, then they become lazy and rely on the givers rather than God. The scriptures cannot be taken out of context to support political claims (although, unfortunately, it happens all too often). Total agreement with you Ray.
Patricia Poling September 20, 2012 at 05:54 AM
Today, income redistribution occurs in some form in most democratic countries. In a progressive income tax system, a high income earner will pay a higher tax rate than a low income earner. The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation. Romney states that he will close the “loopholes” the wealthy use to pay less tax than prescribed by the tax table. He does not specify what these loophole are. This too is a form of “redistribution”. He is insulting the intelligence of the American people by assuming we don’t know what redistribution means or implicates. He is making an attempt to make the concept of redistribution sound sinister when it has been a part of our system since the 1900’s. As usual he will not tell us the specifics of his plan. He just says what the person standing in front of him at the time wants to hear. He obviously has no real plan for anything or any problem.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »