3 ms·
Oh -- so income inequality is evidence of disparity of opportunity, so you are actually concerned with income inequality. You'd prefer incomes to be more equal
by stvswn 11y ago
Oh -- so income inequality is evidence of disparity of opportunity, so you are actually concerned with income inequality. You'd prefer incomes to be more equal.
If opportunity were perfectly equal (your ideal state), what would you imagine income distribution to look like? Would that be acceptable then?
In other words, at what distribution would you not argue that the distribution itself is evidence of unfairness?
- mmanfrin 11y agoYou'd prefer incomes to be more equal The way you've worded your questions you are trying to lead me in to a talk of wealth redistribution. Incomes being more equal is not about distributing, but in countering things that are naturally regressive by: Establishign a more progressive tax rate, ending on the cap of social security payments (which is the literal definition of a regressive tax), a livable minimum wage, equal access to education (education being generally a flat cost, and so affects the poor a lot harder than the wealthy), a singlepayer healthcare system which will put a much larger portion of income for the poor (than the rich) back in to their pockets ($300/mo for insurance is a lot more to someone who earns $1k a month than to someone earning $10k a month). These happen to be points 1, 8, 2, 7, and 9 on the page you linked. See? You can make income (and thus opportunity) more fair without redistributing.
- zo1 11y agoProgressive taxation is wealth redistribution. What definition of "wealth redistribution" are you working off of? In my opinion, it's just word-trickery to call it anything else: Take money from A, and give to B. As opposed to: Take money from A, pay C to provide service to B, so that B doesn't have to pay. Moral discussion about "taking" vs "voluntarily giving" aside, of course. That never ends productively.