Wealth Redistribution Does Not a “Capitalist” Make
Here is a letter to the Sun-Sentinel:
Brian E. Little needs to brush up on his economics and American history with respect to taxation and the policies of Alexander Hamilton (Redistribution of wealth is good for social stability, August 1). Although Mr. Little asserts wealth redistribution “protects capitalism, wealth and workers,” there is no greater threat to a vibrant free market economy than a progressive income tax.
Invoking Alexander Hamilton, Mr. Little seeks to make a champion out of possibly the greatest stain on American economics. Hamilton is the original top-down central planner in America, whose First Bank served as a template for the Federal Reserve – two organizations antithetical to the principles of free markets. His policies of accumulating and consolidating debt to establish American credit set a dangerous precedent that currently finds us in a $14.3 trillion hole.
Furthermore, progressive income taxes restrict economic liberty and stifle growth – contrary to Mr. Little’s claims. Taxation based on consumption proved the best mechanism for enhancing wealth and providing certainty to markets so all could prosper, as inflation was essentially zero from 1783 until 1913. Is it any coincidence that the value of the dollar is on a steady decline since 1913 – the year the income tax became a permanent fixture in the tax code and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act?
If Mr. Little is so certain that Hamiltonian central planning, redistribution of wealth and progressive income taxes are good for business, social stability and national security, then why is the nation teetering on all fronts?
Craig D. Schlesinger