Independent
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,629
I'd like to think that it is beyond debate that there is a gap.
Whether it matters is a very open question. My own view (and I'm happy to be convinced othewise) is that it does not matter and we should not attempt to do anything about it:
1. historical attempts to rectify preceived fiscal inequality have generally resulted in lower standards of living accross the board - the colossal human tragedies of the communist/socialist workers' paradises being the most extreme example;
2. I'd like to believe that if the less well off demographic segments of society are still (i) enjoying a reasonable and improving standard of living and (ii) are able to see at least the existence of reasonable opportunities for advancement, then our society is doing a better job of looking after its people than many (most?) other societies have done historically. In other words, absolute poverty is a greater issue than relative poverty.
I have to disagree with the first statement. One thing that "rectify perceived fiscal inequality" was free public education that we started way back in the 18th century. I think that was a huge success at both growing the economic pie and growing the pieces enjoyed at the lower end. Similarly, I've read that the WWII GI bill gave low income people an opportunity that they would have never had without it, and we all benefited.
I don't see anyone in the US recommending anything like Stalinism.
I agree that absolute poverty is a bigger issue than relative poverty. But if we've got absolute poverty, we work on it with gov't programs that use tax dollars. The practical issues are where do we get the tax dollars and who should we help?