> "'Reducing inequality' ... would probably lead to reduced economic efficiency, as it necessarily reduces the incentives for efficient production." this argum

> "'Reducing inequality' ... would probably lead to reduced economic efficiency, as it necessarily reduces the incentives for efficient production." this argument gets made a lot (for instance, re: the lower capital gains rate) because proponents want it to be true and its flaws are not immediately obvious, but it's unambiguously mistaken. first, esteem from wealth is relative, and as long as there is a spectrum of wealth, the wealthiest will derive maximal esteem regardless of the absolute value of wealth. and that's the primary driver for the ambitious and greedy, not putting resources to highest and best use (which is at best a side effect). greater equality doesn't change that equation one iota. second, it's plain to see that large accumulations of wealth are fairly unproductive, simply illustrated by the localized real estate bubbles driven by both wealth seeking safe harbor and PE-backed landlords seeking unproductive rents. in fact, there seems to be a central optimum. relative to now, wider dispersion of wealth (less wealth disparity) seems to provide the best bang-for-buck when it comes to efficiency, putting more potential to work rather than mostly relegating it to the menial sidelines.