On distribution of wealth, again

EDITOR:

My wife recently noticed there was a rebuttal to my letter dealing with redistribution of wealth in America. Reading that rebuttal caused me to realize I did not explain my thoughts clearly.

Where I went wrong was in not remembering my age and how long I had been in the workforce. The rebuttal stated that this person, a Mr. H, thought that redistribution of wealth was socialism and he was not for that.

I would have to say I agree with that premise and I am happy to see he actually agrees with my position. Let me explain.

I started working in the 1950s and in those days, one-tenth of 1 percent did not hold 95 percent of all available wealth in America, as is the case presently. I would say that, for lack of a better term, I am promoting a return to the distribution of wealth that occurred in days long past.

Another way to put it is that for the situation we have now to exist, we have already experienced a redistribution of wealth over the past 35 or 40 years. An example would be the mathematical fact that the average wage increase in America over the past 35 years has been less then 50 cents a year!

Now that is a statistic and it includes all wages paid to all workers over that period of time. That does not change the fact that in each of those years with the paltry wage increases we have actually experienced a wealth redistribution to that top one-tenth of 1 percent. Where was Mr. H and his resistance to socialism over the past 35 years, while it was actually occurring?

In addition, when I started in the workforce we lacked many social programs such as Housing Allowance, food assistance and even some of the current medical aid programs? Are these not socialism? Wouldn’t most people rather have a living wage and be well able to pay their own way in these areas?

Mr. H also mentioned he had trouble finding a job that matched the training he undertook and accomplished. Welcome to the club. Move to China, India, Mexico or many other countries where the American jobs have relocated so that that one-tenth of 1 percent could have 95 percent of the wealth. Wasn’t there a U.S. president some significant amount of years ago who promoted a trickle down economy where if some people had great wealth they would invest in America and we would have a vibrant economy and a wealth of good-paying jobs? It has indeed been many years and if the trickle had actually worked, Mr. H and a good many others would be working and living in that talked-about vibrant economy. But in actuality the holders of the wealth prized greed over patriotism and used the funds to build businesses in countries that had very low labor costs.

My original position stands, and if you want a better life, you will probably agree with me. Unless, of course, you prefer identifying with a certain political party’s views instead of enjoying an equitable life style for yourself and others. The majority of Americans right now do not identify with either of the major parties and instead identify as independent thinkers and therefore independent voters. It is too bad that the current positions of the political parties forces this choice.

As that is the reality I will stand with — a strong economy and a fair lifestyle for all Americans, not just the 3,000 at the very top.

Donald A Lison

Florence, Wis.

COMMENTS