New words in Newspeak

Have you noticed that redistributing wealth to rich folks is called "wealth creation," while helping middle and lower economic-class folks create wealth is called "wealth redistribution"?

Isn't that just fascinating?

Anyway…

New Bush Agenda May Pitch Tax Relief for Investors
Thu Jul 29, 2004 01:30 PM ET

By Caren Bohan
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush will likely highlight tax relief and Social Security reform when he retools his economic platform for an intense month of campaigning in August, Republicans say.

The initiatives will be aimed at small investors and young voters worried about their retirement savings and touted as ways to strengthen the economy, according to Republicans close to the administration.

"The message will be that Bush is for wealth creation and (Democrat John) Kerry is for wealth redistribution," said Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, a group that raises money for conservative political candidates.

Posted by Prometheus 6 on July 30, 2004 - 8:25am :: Politics
 
Prometheus 6's blog | latest article | previous | next
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually, it is your use of the term wealth distribution that is not mainstream.

You could argue that e.g. lower taxes for rich people will cause some guy living on welfare to receive less of it, to the benefit of the rich guy, but to call that wealth distribution TO the rich is a bit farfetched.

Wealth distribution in the usual sense is measured by comparing how much money you have before government intervention with how much money after government intervention. Those that end up with less are said to be taxed, and those that end up with more are said to be subsidized.

Posted by  dof (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 8:52am.

By your definition, the upper economic class is well subsidized and the lower is heavily taxed.

I'm more than willing to make the vocabulary shift if it makes things clearer.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 9:14am.

I read your statement as saying that the "lower economic class" would be better off if the government operated on a cost-basis, but I don't believe that is what you mean.

How exactly is someone who pays 40% taxes on his income subsidized?

Posted by  dof (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 11:22am.

Through having their non-earned income exempted from taxation.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 11:26am.

Whaddaya mean non-earned income?

Posted by  dof (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 12:57pm.

Non-earned, un-earned...

Income you get by means other than earning it.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 1:28pm.

You mean income from sources other than labour?

Posted by  dof (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 1:59pm.

Nope.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on July 30, 2004 - 2:17pm.

Not to start another thread, but I think the distinction lies in the linguistic association of wealth with a state as opposed to an amount.

The wealthy have wealth, and the workers have work, unless of course they win the lottery.

Traditionally, wealth was determined by birth. So the wealthy naturally have all the wealth, and the only way anyone else can get more is to take it away from them and redistribute it.

Posted by  Mike (not verified) on August 1, 2004 - 1:43am.

I think the association of wealth with a state is more than linguistic. I DO think the tools to manipulate that association are all linguistic, though.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on August 1, 2004 - 3:46am.

The consequences of throwing away mainstream semantics and ascribing new meanings to existing words to fit your personal worldview or branch of ethics is that it makes discussion with or even understanding the viewpoint of an opponent impossible.

In other words, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Posted by  dof (not verified) on August 1, 2004 - 8:48am.

In other words, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Not familiar with the US tax code?

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on August 1, 2004 - 10:29am.

Not overly, no, and even if I was, I still wouldn't know what you are going on about it cos you haven't said it.

Posted by  dof (not verified) on August 1, 2004 - 11:15am.

That explains why you don't understand.

Unearned income is defined by the tax code, not me.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on August 1, 2004 - 11:42am.