Economic analysis of various existing and proposed income distribution schemes for the alleviation of poverty in the USA, with emphasis on the economic implications thereof - evaluates the existing system of explicit and implicit public grants and taxes (incl. Social security, education grants, farm subsidies, health services, etc.), and considers social policy alternatives for a universal income redistribution. References and statistical tables.

While income redistribution is one of the most important functions of modern governments, the world has changed greatly since this first edition of Economics of Income Redistribution was published in 1983. Pension systems and medical programs are in a state of crisis in many parts of the world and the general political mood is shifting away from income redistribution. Economics of Income Redistribution (2nd edition) brings this work up to date by discussing the economic and political aspects of income redistribution. It examines the classical moral objective of redistribution to assist the poor, as well as income transfer for pensions, education and intra-family gift giving.

While income redistribution is one of the most important functions of modern governments, the world has changed greatly since this first edition of Economics of Income Redistribution was published in 1983. Pension systems and medical programs are in a state of crisis in many parts of the world and the general political mood is shifting away from income redistribution. Economics of Income Redistribution (2nd edition) brings this work up to date by discussing the economic and political aspects of income redistribution. It examines the classical moral objective of redistribution to assist the poor, as well as income transfer for pensions, education and intra-family gift giving.

Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, along with progressive economists like Thomas Piketty and Paul Krugman, have made a case for redistributing income from the wealthy to the poor as a means of reducing inequalities in income and wealth. Meanwhile, public opinion polls show that voters reject programs of redistribution in favor of policies designed to promote overall economic growth and job creation. While voters are concerned about inequality, they are more skeptical of the capacity of the government to do anything about it without making matters worse for everyone. In this Broadside, James Piereson explains why the voters are right and the progressive politicians and economists are wrong. As he demonstrates, the progressive case is based upon a serious fallacy: it assumes that the government is actually capable of redistributing income from the wealthy to the poor. For reasons of policy, tradition, and constitutional design, this is not the case. The United States currently has one of the more progressive income tax systems in the industrial world but it does little to redistribute income from the wealthy to the poor. One reason for this is that, though the government spends vast sums on programs to aid the poor, most of these funds flow to providers of services rather than to the poor themselves. Thus, whatever one may think of inequality, redistributive tax and spending policies are unlikely to do much to ameliorate it but will instead line the pockets of providers and advocates who wield great influence in Washington.

A central contested issue in contemporary economics and political philosophy is whether governments should redistribute wealth. In this book, a philosopher and an economist debate this question. James Otteson argues that respect for individual persons requires that the government should usually not alter the results of free exchanges, and so redistribution is usually wrong. Steven McMullen argues that governments should substantially redistribute wealth in order to ensure that all have a minimal opportunity to participate in economic life. Over the course of the exchange, the authors investigate a number of important questions. Is redistribution properly a question of justice, and what is the appropriate standard? Has the welfare state been effective at fighting poverty? Can we expect government intervention in the economy to be helpful or counterproductive? Are our obligations to help the poor best met through government action, or through private philanthropy and individual charity? The book features clear statements of each argument, responses to counterarguments, in-text definitions, a glossary of key terms, and section summaries. Scholars and students alike will find it easy to follow the debate and learn the key concepts from philosophy, politics, and economics necessary to understand each position. Key Features: Offers clear arguments written to be accessible to readers and students without a deep background in economics, philosophy, or political theory. Fosters a deep exchange of ideas with responses from each author to the main arguments. Provides in-text definitions and a glossary with definitions of key terms. Includes section summaries that give an overview of the main arguments and a comprehensive bibliography for further reading.

The Fund has recognized in recent years that one cannot separate issues of economic growth and stability on one hand and equality on the other. Indeed, there is a strong case for considering inequality and an inability to sustain economic growth as two sides of the same coin. Central to the Fund’s mandate is providing advice that will enable members’ economies to grow on a sustained basis. But the Fund has rightly been cautious about recommending the use of redistributive policies given that such policies may themselves undercut economic efficiency and the prospects for sustained growth (the so-called “leaky bucket” hypothesis written about by the famous Yale economist Arthur Okun in the 1970s). This SDN follows up the previous SDN on inequality and growth by focusing on the role of redistribution. It finds that, from the perspective of the best available macroeconomic data, there is not a lot of evidence that redistribution has in fact undercut economic growth (except in extreme cases). One should be careful not to assume therefore—as Okun and others have—that there is a big tradeoff between redistribution and growth. The best available macroeconomic data do not support such a conclusion.