Redistribution of wealth


In a heated election year, much ado is made about the term “redistribution of income.” It’s been reported that President Obama, and the democrats are redistributing income, that is to say taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor. Moreover, the accusation: if democrats retain control of the White House corporate America will have to buy welfare Cadillacs is simply not true.

The “real-world” redistribution of wealth actually occurs on the Balance Sheet of corporate America. I emphasize the term “real-world” because most people are required to live in the real-world. Unlike corporate, most people are required to pay taxes on all wages and salaries earned. They don’t have the luxury to depreciation schedules, or the privilege to (legally) manipulate revenue and income, or to perform razzle-dazzle tricks on income or cost statements.

It should be noted the corporate example (Walmart) used in this article is not intended as a sole-source example. It is cited to show how poverty or minimum wages paid to an employee of a corporation has negative effects on all Americans, and that one of its cause is clearly the result of government policy. So, for the example cited, consider the superrich corporation headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.

They (and others of corporate America) are likely to pay an employee less than a livable wage for services rendered. In the meantime, their lobbyists’ walked the hallowed halls of congress to influence and to enact the government policy of “subsidy.” In this context, subsidy is policy that usually appears in the IRS tax code, and/or through government grant programs designed for low-wage employees, and/or other programs like food stamp and SNAP designed for the children of minimum wage earners.

When government policy allows educational grants to children of a low-wage employee of corporate, (grants that are never repaid to the taxpayer), that’s subsidizing.

When government policy makes provision for the Child Tax Credit in the IRS 1040, that’s subsidizing, but I would argue that in the long haul it’s subsidizing the employer. (Only low wage parents with children qualify for these special tax credits). Subsidizing corporate is subtle, but it’s real and occurs every day.

When government policy allows medical care to be rendered to a low-wage employee or the child at a local emergency room hospital (costs never paid by the parent of the child), that’s subsidizing. As a result of the action, the whole community pays for cost incurred through increased insurance premiums.

It occurs again in the form of the free school lunch programs, a lunch for children of low-wage earners and maybe the only substantial meal the child receives for the day. But that too is subsidizing. But I would argue that it is subsidizing corporate (through the back-door).

While these programs and others benefit the poor, they accrue more NET to corporate than to the poor. The government, as enablers, provide corporate the ability to pay poverty-wages. In return, enormous profits are added to the Balance Sheet of corporate to the delight of stockholders. Corporate America executes these financial games every day on the American voter. They accomplish it through congressional policy. “Corporate has the best government money can buy.”

In closing, corporate America knows the innate nature of the average voter. They know it is second “nature” for the American voter to vote against his or her own best interest. By creating slogans like patriotism, vote America, nationalism, and other feel good 30-second sound bites, corporate drives the bus during the election year. In corporate board-rooms of America, terms like these are hatched every election-year to deceive the voter.

Knowing beforehand the vulnerable nature of the American voter (and taking advantage of it), special interests like Walmart buy and sell congressional representatives, at will, and milk all the available tits in the American government.

Jack Dawsey

Roseboro

comments powered by Disqus