kane

Correct. And that is a redistribution of wealth. The top 5% of earners in this country pay around 80% of the taxes. So the rich already pay most of the taxes collected by the government. The government then takes those taxes and uses them for some of the things you have mentioned. Without the rich paying into the system as they do there would be no public eduction, many roads would be in shambles, the military would be a shell of what it is and things like police and fire depts would be greatly reduced. So the poor, or for that matter even the middle and upper classes all benefit from things purchased using the wealthy's money. That is a redistribution of wealth. They take money from the rich and they use it to buy things for and/provide services for the non-rich.

Obama will further redistribute that wealth when he starts giving money to people who don't even pay taxes. For example if you earn say 20K a year and are married or have kid you will have zero federal tax liability. Those people pay nothing in federal taxes (although they do pay FICA/social security taxes) and they will actually get money from the government. The question then becomes is that a better economic policy than giving that money either back to the rich or just to the rich? You can argue that if you give a company or a wealthy person 100K in tax cuts or just free money they may invest it or do something with it that helps create more money and more jobs and it could help the economy. If you give 100 poor people 1K each in cash you can bet they will spend it and that money then creates demand for products and causes companies to grow and expand and helps the economy. Which is better? There are great arguments for both and the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. We have tried it one way for 8 years now, I guess we will be trying it the other for the next four and see what happens.

All that said, I still don't see the big deal in calling taxes what they are. They are redistribution of wealth, pure and simple.