Now that we're entering the Golden Age of Obamanian Socialism, we (you, actually) need some instruction on the concept of redistribution. The word is being thrown around loosely by addled minds on both sides of our political divide. As the only representative of the Spartacusbund on this hopelessly moderate web site, the task of providing enlightenment falls to me.

First we should note that our hero Karl Marx did not dwell on redistribution as an ethical policy to advance equity. For him the distribution of income over classes -- what most economists call the functional distribution of income -- was an analytical aspect of the laws of motion under Capitalism. Sure Marx supported obvious reforms such as a progressive income tax, but that was a subordinate feature of his work. Redistribution from rich to not-rich is a liberal and populist trip.

As for socialism, the usual definition is government ownership of capital -- the "means of production." Obama has yet to explore that terrain. George Bush is the real pioneer there. A looser definition is the heavy provision of public services. Of course all governments have services, so how much is a lot? The U.S. ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in public spending as a share of GDP.

What is the border between socialism and not-socialism? Obviously there is none. In the past, conservatives like William F. Buckley pointed out that if you take health care and defense out of the mix, the U.S. public sector is more comparable in size to those in Europe. Do we have part-socialism already? Obviously this is a stupid debate, John McCain is a stupid man, and Republicans are a stupid party. If everybody is socialist, nobody is.

Regarding redistribution, the usual understanding is that when the tax burden is moved across income classes, there is redistribution. This is misleading because the "re" in redistribution implies some initial, primary distribution, sometimes called the pretax distribution of income (or wealth, depending on the context). Thing is, the pretax distribution of income does not exist. It presumes a distribution of income in the absence of government. But with no government, said distribution would be completely different. There is no redistribution. The Right says, "It's your money." Sorry, it isn't. Not economically, nor legally (taxes are owed as income is accrued). What's left is your money.

To be sure, a given government policy change alters the distribution of well-being from what it would be in the absence of that given policy change, and the movement could be towards greater or lesser equality, among other possibilities. Is that what Obama is doing? I would say no. Here you can find a chart of the impact of Obama's tax plan by income class. The lowest quintile gets nearly a six percent increase, the top one percent gets almost a three percent cut. Sound big to you?

In this paper you can find estimates of the distribution of cash income in 2010 (the years don't match up, but this is a blog, not a Brookings panel). The botton quintile has 3.7%, the top one percent has 19 percent. Add a six percent increase to 3.7% and you get 3.9%. Take three percent away from the top group and you come down from 19 to 18.4%. So instead of a ratio of 19 percent for a group 1/20th size of the people with 3.7%, you have 18.4 and 3.9. If this is socialism, I am Mother Jones. True social-democrats understand that fruits of redistribution derive from the expenditure side of the budget, not the tax side.

The limited action in tax policy for the past two decades or so pertains to the highest and lowest slivers of the population, in terms of income. Democrats tighten the screws on the top and loosen them on the bottom, while Republicans do the opposite. The burden on those in the middle changes much less, if at all. Any such changes, moreover, are temporary insofar as they are financed by higher deficits. The bill comes due later. Meanwhile, the distribution of "market (sic) income" -- wages, salaries, dividends, interest -- has grown much less equal, in comparison to which Democrats' tax changes are meager.

Some liberals enjoy the prospect of redistribution in Obama's tax proposals. They miss crucial angles. Redistribution, among other illusions, summons up the image of taking from one and giving to the other, perhaps to the undeserving poor. First of all, compared to current law (including the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), Obama is offering a net tax reduction. The reduction is bigger for some than for others. Secondly, Obama's infamous refundable tax credits (like McCain's), are conditioned on work. Work implies a payroll tax burden, so a refundable income tax credit is a genuine payroll tax cut, if the individual in question owes less in income tax than in payroll tax.

Second, people forget that welfare has been "reformed." There is no more Federal program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The Feds do not give cash to able-bodied people who don't work, unless you count George Bush. There are no more poor people. There are poor workers. The only redeeming virtue of the 1996 welfare reform, for which a toasty place in Hell is reserved for William Jefferson Clinton, is for all practical purposes to turn "welfare" into a wage supplement program. The welfare system is now one of work-conditioned benefits. We're a long way from Das Kapital.

The right-wing canard was that AFDC went to people who wouldn't work. That's gone. Even conservatives say so. Now we're giving working people a raise. That's a different political ballgame. Obama is taking advantage of it. His supporters should do likewise, rather than take pleasure in the long-awaited return of old-style redistribution via public assistance. It's not in Obama's platform.

I personally doubt that many people care about the distribution of income. Said distribution is a column of percentages. People are aggrieved when their expectations of income are not met, and especially when they cannot afford the standard of living to which they have become accustomed. They are suspicious of the promise of government assistance, I would guess for three reasons: 1) they are not confident they will be net recipients in the exercise, rather than net payers; 2) it affronts their pride in earning their own way, or their animus towards those they perceive to not be earning; and 3) they worry about the government's financial solvency.

Work-conditioned benefits are broadly distributed, alleviating problem 1. They depend on work, dealing with (2). Demonstrated budget discipline (which need not imply a balanced budget) addresses (3). Obama has made his tax firewall -- $250,000, below it you don't pay more tax -- abundantly clear to the voters. Within that comfort zone an expansion of work-based benefits is feasible. It could be argued that an emphasis on work-based benefits makes easier the provision of other benefits.

Just don't call it socialism. Save that for the really good stuff.