Income Inequality

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Really, we need to get rich people (and others, the wealthy tend to have a higher proportion of their money in some sort of savings) spending more money instead of saving it.

 

[Danoff]

Or, perhaps it's a backup solution when their actual number one proposed solution - raising the minimum wage, which would have a direct correlation - gets argued down by the same folks who then act perplexed as to why they've fallen back to less direct solutions?

Minimum wage hurts poor people though. I suppose it could impact income inequality, but it has nothing to do with taxes. So I gather you're on board with the notion that raising taxes doesn't seem to impact income inequality.

Really, we need to get rich people (and others, the wealthy tend to have a higher proportion of their money in some sort of savings) spending more money instead of saving it.

Uh.... why?

Also how do you think they're saving it?

 

[Exorcet]

Really, we need to get rich people (and others, the wealthy tend to have a higher proportion of their money in some sort of savings) spending more money instead of saving it.

Just thinking about my own contributions, wouldn't it make the most sense to give at the end of your life? While you're alive save as much money as you can to cover any conceivable financial problem that you might face and also use that money to make more money. Then when you die, having maximized profit, you can donate everything since you don't need it anymore. Realistically, there will be some good reasons to donate to causes during your life, but I think in general being "selfish" until death might be a good way to be generous.

 

[huskeR32]

Minimum wage hurts poor people though. I suppose it could impact income inequality, but it has nothing to do with taxes.

I don't recall saying it did have anything to do with taxes.

So I gather you're on board with the notion that raising taxes doesn't seem to impact income inequality.

I agree with the specific logic you posted - raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't directly change the income of the poor.

But again, my main point was that I think people are using the term "income inequality" when they actually mean "wealth inequality," and you're searching for logic behind a argument that most people aren't advancing.

Raising taxes on the wealthy, and using that increased revenue to fund welfare programs may not directly raise someone's income, but it certainly helps them stretch their income farther, while reducing the wealth gap, however minutely.

 

[Danoff]

But again, my main point was that I think people are using the term "income inequality" when they actually mean "wealth inequality," and you're searching for logic behind a argument that most people aren't advancing.

That'd be a mistake though. Because there are some extremely wealthy people that have very little income. And there are people that are not particularly wealthy that have massive income. Wealth inequality is even harder to gauge, because the data isn't even public record. Taxing high income people (not necessarily "the wealthy") to fund welfare programs also most likely doesn't affect any kind of "wealth gap". Because while it might prevent high income people from building wealth (which we want them to do of course) it most likely does little to nothing to help people on welfare programs build wealth. Welfare doesn't help people build assets, it helps them make ends meet.

So try to see this from the other perspective for a moment. We don't have great data on wealth. We have great data on income. Raising taxes on high earners to fund programs to give handouts to low earners doesn't affect the income data, and will be a very difficult signal to see in our lack of wealth data. So we can literally ask for more of this "solution" forever. There is no limit to the amount of cure that one can request to adjust the signal of inequality because the cure doesn't affect the signal.

I take it a step further of course. Inequality isn't even a problem. Wealthy people are a good thing, we want that. People having more than other people is a natural and good thing too. But the proposed solution here isn't going to get fed back into the indicators that are being used to argue for the solution... so it's not a good solution.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Just thinking about my own contributions, wouldn't it make the most sense to give at the end of your life? While you're alive save as much money as you can to cover any conceivable financial problem that you might face and also use that money to make more money. Then when you die, having maximized profit, you can donate everything since you don't need it anymore. Realistically, there will be some good reasons to donate to causes during your life, but I think in general being "selfish" until death might be a good way to be generous.

My post was more or less getting to this point. People save money their whole lives and then end up passing it down to their childen, who then often will continue saving it their whole lives and repeating the same process. The money essentially leaves the economic system in perpetuity. I wonder how much money exists in this kind of limbo condition.

 

[Danoff]

My post was more or less getting to this point. People save money their whole lives and then end up passing it down to their childen, who then often will continue saving it their whole lives and repeating the same process. The money essentially leaves the economic system in perpetuity. I wonder how much money exists in this kind of limbo condition.

Except the US government takes a cut each time.

A lot of times what people have leftover is not really much. Especially if they had multiple kids, the takehome per kid often ends up being not that much, especially after taxes. Eventually you run into a deadbeat kid that inherits it and squanders it all and then some anyway and ends up on the dole before the end anyway.

But as I mentioned earlier, you need to give a thought as to how that money ends up being saved. Because money sitting in a savings account, or in a mutual fund, or in an investment brokerage account, or in a CD, or in real estate, is still being used.

In fact, even money "sitting" in a rare painting is being used.

If money could leave the "system" forever, like if it were burned or buried in physical bills in a treasure chest, that money being removed would be deflationary. Meaning everyone else's money goes up in value. Meaning it's still getting used!

 

[Keef]

Can you explain any of that? Like why you think it's a symptom of serious problems, and why you think it causes harm?

First of all I need to address some terminology - it's probably already been mentioned in this thread.

"Income inequality", if I'm judging that term on its words, isn't a problem in and of itself. It's a natural result of a complex economy. Some commodities are more valuable than others, some skills, some jobs, some people are more valuable than others. That's a natural, logical fact, and if a market were allowed to run its course without any interference there would tend to be a natural distribution resulting in a very few people with a lot of wealth, a large amount of people in the middle with comfortable wealth, and a relatively small number at the bottom...I think this part is pretty widely known. I don't know the term for this distribution but I've been exposed to the idea in the past.

A better term for what I see as a symptom of bigger problems might be opportunity inequality. I'm still not hot on this term of "social equity" because that implies that somebody has to decide what is fair. Anyway, the whole "you can be anything you want to be" is a load of bollocks. Only a tiny minority of people from any walk of life will ever encounter extraordinary opportunity. Perhaps there is a natural distribution of opportunity? Wealthier people tend to stay wealthy and poorer people tend to stay poor...is that just the natural course of things?

I suppose it could be if it weren't for institutional classism and racism which has effectively chosen who will exceed and who won't. Redlining is a classic example of this and it wasn't an accident. Somebody might argue that it was nearly the market at work, risk assessment or whatever, but it was heavily influenced by blatant classism and racism. It's not a mystery. When policymakers get involved, any natural distribution of income, or opportunity, or skill, etc, all get thrown out the window which is at the core of why folks like us would argue to minimize that policy influence across the board. But regardless if that change were made, the after effects of poor policy decisions are ongoing and will continue to effect future generations.

I used to work with a guy who grew up in the hood of Miami, the kind of place where you'd see shirtless guys doing wheelies on dirt bikes through the neighborhood on the way to the trap house. Luckily for him he never got in trouble and spent a few years in the military, after which he was able to afford flight training. Now he's an airline pilot. A lot of poor people in America see that as the only way to make it out of the hole that policymakers designed for them. It's odd how those poor people sacrificing their rights to improve their lives are also seen as expendable during wartime. It's got sort of a Hunger Games vibe to it.

 

[Danoff]

First of all I need to address some terminology - it's probably already been mentioned in this thread.

"Income inequality", if I'm judging that term on its words, isn't a problem in and of itself. It's a natural result of a complex economy. Some commodities are more valuable than others, some skills, some jobs, some people are more valuable than others. That's a natural, logical fact, and if a market were allowed to run its course without any interference there would tend to be a natural distribution resulting in a very few people with a lot of wealth, a large amount of people in the middle with comfortable wealth, and a relatively small number at the bottom...I think this part is pretty widely known. I don't know the term for this distribution but I've been exposed to the idea in the past.

A better term for what I see as a symptom of bigger problems might be opportunity inequality. I'm still not hot on this term of "social equity" because that implies that somebody has to decide what is fair. Anyway, the whole "you can be anything you want to be" is a load of bollocks. Only a tiny minority of people from any walk of life will ever encounter extraordinary opportunity. Perhaps there is a natural distribution of opportunity? Wealthier people tend to stay wealthy and poorer people tend to stay poor...is that just the natural course of things?

I suppose it could be if it weren't for institutional classism and racism which has effectively chosen who will exceed and who won't. Redlining is a classic example of this and it wasn't an accident. Somebody might argue that it was nearly the market at work, risk assessment or whatever, but it was heavily influenced by blatant classism and racism. It's not a mystery. When policymakers get involved, any natural distribution of income, or opportunity, or skill, etc, all get thrown out the window which is at the core of why folks like us would argue to minimize that policy influence across the board. But regardless if that change were made, the after effects of poor policy decisions are ongoing and will continue to effect future generations.

I used to work with a guy who grew up in the hood of Miami, the kind of place where you'd see shirtless guys doing wheelies on dirt bikes through the neighborhood on the way to the trap house. Luckily for him he never got in trouble and spent a few years in the military, after which he was able to afford flight training. Now he's an airline pilot. A lot of poor people in America see that as the only way to make it out of the hole that policymakers designed for them. It's odd how those poor people sacrificing their rights to improve their lives are also seen as expendable during wartime. It's got sort of a Hunger Games vibe to it.

So income inequality is a natural phenomenon and not a problem. But institutional classism and racism is a problem. Ok... not sure I disagree with that. Not sure I buy your premise about people being forced into the military because of the institutional hole they're in, but at the moment that seems beside the point.

 

[Biggles]

So income inequality is a natural phenomenon and not a problem. But institutional classism and racism is a problem. Ok... not sure I disagree with that. Not sure I buy your premise about people being forced into the military because of the institutional hole they're in, but at the moment that seems beside the point.

Income equality isn't a problem in & of itself, but opportunity equality is - especially when it becomes too great. And over time, great income inequality leads to increased opportunity inequality.

 

[Dotini]

over time, great income inequality leads to increased opportunity inequality.

When I was a lad, China was comparatively in the Stone Age during Mao's Great Leap Forward, India too. Obviously today Chinese and Indians have made giant strides, taking advantage of opportunity if not equality. That's billions of people, a huge percentage of world population.

 

[Danoff]

Income equality isn't a problem in & of itself, but opportunity equality is - especially when it becomes too great. And over time, great income inequality leads to increased opportunity inequality.

Why is opportunity inequality a problem? I understand that it's not fair. What I don't understand is the presumption that fair is possible in this case, or a worthy goal. For example, if you're not beautiful, you do not have the opportunity to become a model. If you have down syndrome, you do not have the opportunity to do a lot of things. Is it a worthy goal to try to rectify this? Who's responsibility is it to rectify this?

 

[Daz555]

Why is opportunity inequality a problem? I understand that it's not fair. What I don't understand is the presumption that fair is possible in this case, or a worthy goal. For example, if you're not beautiful, you do not have the opportunity to become a model. If you have down syndrome, you do not have the opportunity to do a lot of things. Is it a worthy goal to try to rectify this? Who's responsibility is it to rectify this?

The model question is a bit specific but in general "is it a worthy goal to rectify this?"....is that serious question? Lack of opportunity means that some people never even get to be considered for the job of a model - not whether they can be one or not.

We can never achieve equality of outcome because everyone is different....but equality of opportunity....That is a MUST for a fair and healthy society. Who here thinks it fair that kids of rich parents get a better education than kids of poor parents? Who here thinks people with money deserve to live longer and healthier lives than those who have less money? Who here wants to live in a world where we never get to realise the potential of so many people simply because they lacked the opportunity?

I hope no-one.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The model question is a bit specific but in general "is it a worthy goal to rectify this?"....is that serious question? Lack of opportunity means that some people never even get to be considered for the job of a model - not whether they can be one or not.

We can never achieve equality of outcome because everyone is different....but equality of opportunity....That is a MUST for a fair and healthy society. Who here thinks it fair that kids of rich parents get a better education than kids of poor parents? Who here thinks people with money deserve to live longer and healthier lives than those who have less money? Who here wants to live in a world where we never get to realise the potential of so many people simply because they lacked the opportunity?

I hope no-one.

Who here thinks this is a strawman argument and you didn't answer the question? Everyone I hope.

 

[Danoff]

The model question is a bit specific but in general "is it a worthy goal to rectify this?"....is that serious question? Lack of opportunity means that some people never even get to be considered for the job of a model - not whether they can be one or not.

You're not thinking this through. In order to make sure that everyone has the same opportunity to be a model, you must eliminate "beautiful people". In order to make sure that everyone has the same opportunity to be an athlete, you must eliminate "athletic people". If everyone has the same opportunity to become a mechanic or engineer, you must eliminate "mechanically inclined". If everyone has the same opportunity to become a writer, you must eliminate people who have "a way with words".

Now you might say that we could take the worst and raise them up to the level of the best. Improve the athletic ability of the most awkward among us, improve the beauty of the most ugly among us, until we are all equal.

But at this point, rather than taking this any further, I'll pose my very serious question again. Is this a worthy goal? Do we really want to eliminate talent? Do we really want to eliminate physical or mental aptitudes? The consequences for life satisfaction could be pure disaster.

We can never achieve equality of outcome because everyone is different....but equality of opportunity....That is a MUST for a fair and healthy society.

Not only is it not a must, it's not even possible.

Who here thinks it fair that kids of rich parents get a better education than kids of poor parents?

I do. It may not be fair to the children. After all, no child gets to choose their parents. But I wouldn't dream of telling a parent that they can't and shouldn't use their property to better the minds of their children, which is what you're requiring.

I've said it before and I'll repeat myself here. I'd choose loving parents over rich parents. Shall we talk about the advantage of love? Shall we talk about how unfair it is that some children are raised in loving households?

 

[Daz555]

You're not thinking this through. In order to make sure that everyone has the same opportunity to be a model, you must eliminate "beautiful people". In order to make sure that everyone has the same opportunity to be an athlete, you must eliminate "athletic people". If everyone has the same opportunity to become a mechanic or engineer, you must eliminate "mechanically inclined". If everyone has the same opportunity to become a writer, you must eliminate people who have "a way with words".

Now you might say that we could take the worst and raise them up to the level of the best. Improve the athletic ability of the most awkward among us, improve the beauty of the most ugly among us, until we are all equal.

But at this point, rather than taking this any further, I'll pose my very serious question again. Is this a worthy goal? Do we really want to eliminate talent? Do we really want to eliminate physical or mental aptitudes? The consequences for life satisfaction could be pure disaster.

I did not suggest we eliminate talent - that would be absurd. I made it very clear that there is a distinction between opportunity and outcome.

For example - I grew up in an area with excellent athletic facilities so had the opportunity to learn sports from great volunteer coaches and play them to as high a level as I could - that level was not good enough to be professional of course (outcome) but I had the opportunity! Contrast this with an old friend who grew up in a **** hole of an area with no facilities at all and went to a school that did not even have a playing field and could not afford to bus the kids to sports facilities elsewhere. He's a better footballer than I am but nowhere near as good as he would have been had he had the same opportunities I had.

Same goes for education - because in many countries governments choose to operate a poorly managed and poorly funded state school systems, we have millions of kids who get a much poorer education than they could. This poorer education limits their opportunities in comparison to kids who had a better education.

 

[Danoff]

I did not suggest we eliminate talent - that would be absurd. I made it very clear that there is a distinction between opportunity and outcome.

You're not coming with me on my train of thought here. Let me use you as an example.

For example - I grew up in an area with excellent athletic facilities so had the opportunity to learn sports from great volunteer coaches and play them to as high a level as I could - that level was not good enough to be professional of course (outcome) but I had the opportunity! Contrast this with an old friend who grew up in a **** hole of an area with no facilities at all and went to a school that did not even have a playing field and could not afford to bus the kids to sports facilities elsewhere. He's a better footballer than I am but nowhere near as good as he would have been had he had the same opportunities I had.

You did not have the opportunity he had to become a professional footballer. You're not athletically predisposed like he is. That's not outcome, his genetics and predispositions are not outcome, they're a starting point. You were born with less athletic predisposition than he was. His opportunity in that respect is greater than yours, from birth, through no fault of your own.

Same goes for education - because in many countries governments choose to operate a poorly managed and poorly funded state school systems, we have millions of kids who get a much poorer education than they could. This poorer education limits their opportunities in comparison to kids who had a better education.

There is no education that is equivalent to any other education. Having educated parents, for example, makes a big difference. It's not fair that some children should be born to educated parents and some should be born to uneducated parents. This leads to a worse childhood education overall, and ultimately a difference in opportunity. You can be born to smart parents who don't value an education and teach you to refuse to learn. You can be born to parents that foster curiosity, or to parents who stifle it. And of course you can be born to parents who refuse custody of you. And of course you can be born with learning disabilities, or genetic abnormalities. None of these are the fault of the individual, and they are the starting point, from birth, and affect your opportunity to become whatever you want to become.

To level the playing field, we all need the same propensity for athleticism (all kinds of athleticism) in case we want to have the same opportunity to be a sumo wrestler, gymnast, or footballer. You must simultaneously be born with the right body proportions fro swimming, gymnastics, and sumo wrestling. We also all need the same propensity for art, science, math, engineering, construction, philosophy and the cosmos. If you want everyone to have the same opportunity to become each of those things, you need the same starting point for each of those things.

This says nothing about outcome.

 

[Daz555]

We can't and shouldn't seek to close down ALL elements that lead unfairness/unequal opportunity because it would be impossible and undesirable - and I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that anyway.

There are many aspects of our lives however which could be FAIRER and there is nothing wrong at all in seeking fairness where it is sensible and with clear benefits. Education being an example. Having millions of kids getting a terrible education is something we can fix if we choose to do so - and we should. My country would be better if our education system was fairer.

Remember I said fairer - not 100% fair which is impossible.

 

[Danoff]

We can't and shouldn't seek to close down ALL elements that lead unfairness/unequal opportunity because it would be impossible and undesirable - and I doubt anyone would seriously suggest that anyway.

There are many aspects of our lives however which could be FAIRER and there is nothing wrong at all in seeking fairness where it is sensible and with clear benefits. Education being an example. Having millions of kids getting a terrible education is something we can fix if we choose to do so - and we should. My country would be better if our education system was fairer.

Remember I said fairer - not 100% fair which is impossible.

I'd like to understand what you mean by fairer. Do you mean that kids who aren't getting the minimum education they need to become productive adults should get enough? Because yes, I'm with you. Do you mean that people should not be able to give their kids a better education by hiring additional help? Because why would you prevent a kid from getting a better education?

 

[Daz555]

I'd like to understand what you mean by fairer. Do you mean that kids who aren't getting the minimum education they need to become productive adults should get enough? Because yes, I'm with you. Do you mean that people should not be able to give their kids a better education by hiring additional help? Because why would you prevent a kid from getting a better education?

I would not use the work "minimum" when it comes to describe the kind of education system we should be building for our children but yes - if the 'minimum' education system was far far closer to the best education available then society would be fairer.

If we reduced income inequality society would be fairer.

If all citizens had access to quality healthcare society would be fairer.

And so on.... it's not rocket science. Many nations have taken many steps to make life fairer but we can do more. Governments changed laws and granted women the right to vote. Fairer. We made it illegal to pay women less than men for the same work. Fairer. We made it illegal to not hire someone because of the colour of their skin - fairer. In my country we introduced a health system which is largely free at the point of use so that whether you live or die from your illness is not so related to how rich you are. Fairer.

Fairer - not equal. Fairer.

 

[Danoff]

I would not use the work "minimum" when it comes to describe the kind of education system we should be building for our children but yes - if the 'minimum' education system was far far closer to the best education available then society would be fairer.

Ok, but then gazillions of people couldn't afford to have children because they couldn't afford the lavishly expensive education required as the minimum (I know, you're presupposing government education, I'm not). So is that fair? Is it good?

If we reduced income inequality society would be fairer.

That is not self-evident. You get what you earn, that seems fair. You don't get what you earn if you earn too much, that's not fair at all.

If all citizens had access to quality healthcare society would be fairer.

"access" is such a tricky word.

And so on.... it's not rocket science. Many nations have taken many steps to make life fairer but we can do more. Governments changed laws and granted women the right to vote.

Women always had that right, even when it was trampled.

We made it illegal to pay women less than men for the same work.

That's not fairer. That approving of one use of property and disapproving of another. You might think the outcome is fairer, but I don't. Personally I think it's perfectly fair that male porn stars get paid less than female porn stars. Perhaps you think it should be illegal.

We made it illegal to not hire someone because of the colour of their skin

Also not fairer. Same reason as above. You're picking and choosing free activities and penalizing the ones you don't like. That's not fair, that's not free.

In my country we introduced a health system which is largely free at the point of use so that whether you live or die from your illness is not so related to how rich you are.

That's not fairer either. You should be able to use your property to keep yourself alive. You're picking and choosing that people are allowed to use their property for some purposes, that you like, and not allowed to use their property for others, that you don't like. That's precisely unfair.

 

[Daz555]

I think a system where everyone has access to quality healthcare is fair. You don't. We clearly have a very different view on what fairness means so best we leave it there I guess and move on.

Next up Brexit and Trump! ;-)

 

[PocketZeven]

That'd be a mistake though. Because there are some extremely wealthy people that have very little income. And there are people that are not particularly wealthy that have massive income. Wealth inequality is even harder to gauge, because the data isn't even public record. Taxing high income people (not necessarily "the wealthy") to fund welfare programs also most likely doesn't affect any kind of "wealth gap". Because while it might prevent high income people from building wealth (which we want them to do of course) it most likely does little to nothing to help people on welfare programs build wealth. Welfare doesn't help people build assets, it helps them make ends meet.

So try to see this from the other perspective for a moment. We don't have great data on wealth. We have great data on income. Raising taxes on high earners to fund programs to give handouts to low earners doesn't affect the income data, and will be a very difficult signal to see in our lack of wealth data. So we can literally ask for more of this "solution" forever. There is no limit to the amount of cure that one can request to adjust the signal of inequality because the cure doesn't affect the signal.

I take it a step further of course. Inequality isn't even a problem. Wealthy people are a good thing, we want that. People having more than other people is a natural and good thing too. But the proposed solution here isn't going to get fed back into the indicators that are being used to argue for the solution... so it's not a good solution.

I think the primary problem isnt wealth inequality itself. It is foremost a problem when people cant afford basic healthcare, food , housing, education etc. I agree that the there is nothing wrong with some people having more then others. The issue is when basic needs cant be afforded by people from a lower wage. This causes a cycle, with the majority of poor staying poor and not affording these basic provisions. Healthcare,nutrition, affordable housing and education are the key to a world were anyone can strive for more wealth and succes. I dont see these as handouts, but rights a citizens of a wealthy country should be entitled to. Nothing more or less. That is the primary "socialist" part of a social-democratic society. I dont see why the republicans in the USA see this as a threat. The only threat I can think of is that its a threat to the establishment and their wealth.

Edit: Wealthinquality is a problem when 1 person can have bilions of dollars excess and pay very little tax, but thousands to millions of people cant afford healthcare, housing and education etc.

 

[Danoff]

I think the primary problem isnt wealth inequality itself. It is foremost a problem when people cant afford basic healthcare, food , housing, education etc. I agree that the there is nothing wrong with some people having more then others. The issue is when basic needs cant be afforded by people from a lower wage. This causes a cycle, with the majority of poor staying poor and not affording these basic provisions. Healthcare,nutrition, affordable housing and education are the key to a world were anyone can strive for more wealth and succes. I dont see these as handouts, but rights a citizens of a wealthy country should be entitled to. Nothing more or less. That is the primary "socialist" part of a social-democratic society. I dont see why the republicans in the USA see this as a threat. The only threat I can think of is that its a threat to the establishment and their wealth.

It's not so much a threat as it is a principle. One's need does not entitle them to their neighbor's work, which is ultimately what you describe. You see the world through a zero-sum lens where one person's wealth comes at the expense of some other person. Or in an interrelated fashion where you can arbitrarily draw moral connections between what one person has and another person does not. But the world is made of individuals. What one individual produces has nothing to do with what another individual produces. I know I know, a butterfly flaps its wings in india and suddenly there's a hurricane that causes poor people in Louisiana. But this is an arbitrary connection. You need intent, you need force, you need choice to link actors in the world.

Your notions of basic rights of course fall apart in different environments. If there aren't enough rich people to provide everyone with houses, suddenly housing is not a right. If there aren't enough people to with the ability or know-how to provide basic healthcare, suddenly healthcare isn't a right. You're only calling it a right because you think you see enough of it that you could redistribute it. But this is a perilously tenuous definition of a right.

To make matters worse, it infringes the rights of others. To guarantee housing, you must take it from others. To provide one person with unearned property you have two options, voluntary charity, or force. When you refuse to rely on voluntary charity, and instead advocate for force, you're now putting one person's actual rights at odds with another person's wish list. Same with healthcare. This is immoral at a very fundamental level.

 

[Daz555]

Please explain how rich people provide everyone with houses - I don't follow that at all so just want to clarify what you mean.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not so much a threat as it is a principle. One's need does not entitle them to their neighbor's work, which is ultimately what you describe. You see the world through a zero-sum lens where one person's wealth comes at the expense of some other person. Or in an interrelated fashion where you can arbitrarily draw moral connections between what one person has and another person does not. But the world is made of individuals. What one individual produces has nothing to do with what another individual produces. I know I know, a butterfly flaps its wings in india and suddenly there's a hurricane that causes poor people in Louisiana. But this is an arbitrary connection. You need intent, you need force, you need choice to link actors in the world.

Your notions of basic rights of course fall apart in different environments. If there aren't enough rich people to provide everyone with houses, suddenly housing is not a right. If there aren't enough people to with the ability or know-how to provide basic healthcare, suddenly healthcare isn't a right. You're only calling it a right because you think you see enough of it that you could redistribute it. But this is a perilously tenuous definition of a right.

To make matters worse, it infringes the rights of others. To guarantee housing, you must take it from others. To provide one person with unearned property you have two options, voluntary charity, or force. When you refuse to rely on voluntary charity, and instead advocate for force, you're now putting one person's actual rights at odds with another person's wish list. Same with healthcare. This is immoral at a very fundamental level.

I think you misunderstood. I am not against wealth inequality and not for handouts you are describing. In our current system there is social subsidized affordable housing and subsidies to help people with lower income to be able to afford housing. Healthcare is not free but subsidized for the lower incomes.

One should never rely on charity. How is it immoral? Is it moral to have a person have extreme wealth and pay little tax and at the same time have people not able to afford lifesaving healthcare? Or when a person gets in an accident, we should just let him die, because he cant afford food, healthcare etc? I am not advocating a basic income or entitlement like you describe. I am describing a society where a person that works fulltime can actually afford education, food, housing and healthcare. And when a person cant work at least isnt left to suffer and die. Voluntary charity doesnt work, because people can be very selfish. Take POTUS for example, how much has he contributed volentarily to charity to help people in relation to his supposed wealth?

edit:

Please explain how rich people provide everyone with houses - I don't follow that at all so just want to clarify what you mean.

I think he incorrectly assumed that I meant free housing paid by the rich. I meant houses at cost or subsidized to make it more affordable (not free). People still need to work. But at least any working person can afford healthcare, housing, food, education etc. Not handouts in the definition of getting something, without contributing yourself, with somebody else (richer) paying for it.

edit 2:
I am choosing to differentiate between human rights and rights given by a certain country.

 

[stonesfan129]

"Income inequality..." Ha, well, you will always have people that are more ambitious than others, luckier than others, smarter than others. Trying to create equal outcomes never actually works out well for anyone.

 

[PocketZeven]

"Income inequality..." Ha, well, you will always have people that are more ambitious than others, luckier than others, smarter than others. Trying to create equal outcomes never actually works out well for anyone.

That isnt what it stands for. The right purposely misrepresent the term to fuel their narrative. That lazy people are entitled and poor people are poor because their not intelligent or dont commit enough effort. It isnt about handouts at all and it has never been. It is about that person that works multiple jobs and still cant pay their bills. Not that everyone should receive the same income. It should not be allowed that a person that makes 1.000.000X more, does not pay a employee that works full time, a living wage to provide education and healthcare for their family. That rich person may be 10x smarter, 100x more lucky, 1000x more ambitious, but does that justify that the person who works fulltime not able to make a living wage and provide healthcare and education for their family.

edit: correction

 

[stonesfan129]

That isnt what it stands for. The right purposely misrepresent the term to fuel their narrative. That lazy people are entitled and poor people are poor because their not intelligent or dont commit enough effort. It isnt about handouts at all and it has never been. It is about that person that works multiple jobs and still cant pay their bills. Not that everyone should receive the same income. It should not be allowed that a person that makes 1.000.000X more, does not pay a employee that works full time, a living wage to provide education and healthcare for their family. That rich person may be 10x smarter, 100x more lucky, 1000x more ambitious, but does that justify that the person who works fulltime not able to make a living wage and provide healthcare and education for their family.

edit: correction

You get paid what your labor is worth. A CEO is more valuable to the company than someone who answers phones. That's why a CEO makes 10x more. What is a living wage? $15/hr? Why stop there, let's make it $100,000 per year along with full health, dental, vision and 401k. If someone works multiple jobs and still can't afford to pay their bills, then I would ask what bills they are trying to pay and why they thought it a good idea to take them on to begin with. Income inequality = creating equal outcomes.

 

[PocketZeven]

You get paid what your labor is worth. A CEO is more valuable to the company than someone who answers phones. That's why a CEO makes 10x more. What is a living wage? $15/hr? Why stop there, let's make it $100,000 per year along with full health, dental, vision and 401k. If someone works multiple jobs and still can't afford to pay their bills, then I would ask what bills they are trying to pay and why they thought it a good idea to take them on to begin with. Income inequality = creating equal outcomes.

Did you even read the post? Living wage is easily established, just calculate the average rent in wach state, the min. one needs for food, education costs for children and healthcare premium average. If someone lives above their means, then its their own fault if they fall into debt. Dont assume everyone is living above their means though, sickness or accidents can drive families into debt. You are hyperboling to counter my post. I am not saying people should receive 100k a year.

It already helps if healthcare and education is made affordable for even the lowest incomes. You can do that without raising the minimum income.
I have my own company and have about 20 employees. I pay the lowest functions minimum wage and they still can afford education for their children, healthcare (subsidized) and (social) housing. These employees dont have the ambition to take more responsibility and are also not highly educated. But they do work hard and dont need to worry about educating their kids and not affording medical bills if they lose their job.

Please examine european countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc. And look at how they take on inequality. The rich are still rich and the poor still poor, but at least healthcare is not a financial burden and their children have the tools available to improve and excel.