Redistribution Ain't All That Bad.

       Has it occurred to anyone that some Conservatives are against the idea of redistribution of wealth between citizens of America, but are mre than happy to accept the redistribution of wealth between the states of America? Let that sink in for a minute while you try to understand where this redistribution is taking place.
       First let's look at the inequality of wealth and opportunity that currently exists between the wealthiest Americans and the 90% of us who continue to struggle. The top 10% of Americans hold 76% of all the wealth in America. Now make no mistake, I'm all in favor of the opportunity to succeed and become wealthy. That's the American dream. But once you've made it, shouldn't there be a point where you level off in order to give someone else that same opportunity?
       But let's get back to the idea of redistribution of wealth between the states. Some states' citizens pay far more taxes than other states. For instance, California and New York have a much greater concentration of wealthy taxpayers than states like Nebraska, Louisiana, Idaho, and Alabama. Sooooo, so the federal government distributes much of the tax income it receives back to the states based on needs and other criteria I don't even understand.
       But the upshot is that the states like Nebraska, Louisiana, Idaho, and Alabama receive more funding than states like California and New York because there's a much larger concentration of poor and lower middle class in the poorer states. Now if that isn't a redistribution of wealth, I'd like to know what is.
       Oh, and I'm not suggesting that we stop funding to the poorer states, I'm just suggesting that higher taxes on the wealthy would fund badly needed infrastructure improvements that would create good paying jobs for those who could use the help and would actually help the wealthy corporate owners as well.