3 ms·

What's wrong with income inequality? I see no reason to attempt to reduce it. The goal is to become the very best, not accept mediocrity to please the less-abl

What's wrong with income inequality? I see no reason to attempt to reduce it. The goal is to become the very best, not accept mediocrity to please the less-ables. Surely, you wouldn't like the idea of penalizing smarter students just so that everyone get equal grades. What's different about income?

ralmeida 11y ago
People don't die over a low grade. Also, the talk is about reducing income inequality, not eliminating it. I take it you want meritocracy to prevail, but are you against moderate redistribution in order to establish a "minimum threshold"?
Broken_Hippo 11y ago
Some income inequality is natural and needed. Some people strive for that sort of success. Others are perfectly happy making less because their life focuses on other things - like artwork and family and other such things. But when income inequality grows to the point that people are having trouble even getting what the "best" have decided is needed to make it in the world, or even having enough healthy food to eat, it becomes a big problem. And you are mixing things up - it isn't about giving everyone the same grades. A smart student would be challenged more, and the dyslexic student would have education so that they can keep up. The thing boils down to having unequal access to basic things in life and unequal access to opportunities. Health care, choice in healthy foods, which college you go to and the quality of your education are often linked to what your family income is when you are young. Even those sorts of things up, and the inequality in income doesn't matter as much. In countries that have helped those sorts of things greatly, the bottom level isn't so low. You can still get filthy rich and other such things, but you get more responsibilities in the form of taxes. It just winds up that this sort of system winds up with less of a difference between people's incomes, but if you can do it without fixing the income thing, income itself won't be an issue.

ralmeida 11y ago

People don't die over a low grade. Also, the talk is about reducing income inequality, not eliminating it. I take it you want meritocracy to prevail, but are you against moderate redistribution in order to establish a "minimum threshold"?

Broken_Hippo 11y ago

Some income inequality is natural and needed. Some people strive for that sort of success. Others are perfectly happy making less because their life focuses on other things - like artwork and family and other such things. But when income inequality grows to the point that people are having trouble even getting what the "best" have decided is needed to make it in the world, or even having enough healthy food to eat, it becomes a big problem. And you are mixing things up - it isn't about giving everyone the same grades. A smart student would be challenged more, and the dyslexic student would have education so that they can keep up. The thing boils down to having unequal access to basic things in life and unequal access to opportunities. Health care, choice in healthy foods, which college you go to and the quality of your education are often linked to what your family income is when you are young. Even those sorts of things up, and the inequality in income doesn't matter as much. In countries that have helped those sorts of things greatly, the bottom level isn't so low. You can still get filthy rich and other such things, but you get more responsibilities in the form of taxes. It just winds up that this sort of system winds up with less of a difference between people's incomes, but if you can do it without fixing the income thing, income itself won't be an issue.