Share this comment
Thanks for that, Mike’s. I think JP does does a great job of trying to strike a balance view on the issue of inequality. Aiming for equality of outcome is obviously nonsense. But he recognizes that excessive inequality is destabilizing and potentially destructive.
We all know that we presently have a serious income inequality issue. This …
Thanks for that, Mike’s. I think JP does does a great job of trying to strike a balance view on the issue of inequality. Aiming for equality of outcome is obviously nonsense. But he recognizes that excessive inequality is destabilizing and potentially destructive.
We all know that we presently have a serious income inequality issue. This is obviously simplistic, but the mantra on the left seems to be “tax the rich”. That may well be the solution to the problem, but I doubt it.
It would be great to hear about other potential solutions (or mix of solutions) to the problem. Can we learn anything from the 1950s and 1960s when income inequality was at it’s lowest?
Well, tax rates WERE much higher post-WWII; they only started getting cut way back down in the Reagan era, and never went back up to those levels.
Tax the rich is a big part of it, but also, college has been sold as a false panacea to poverty. Young people take out massive loans to get degrees that don't really improve their job prospects, so they're stuck trying to pay them off while working at Starbucks.
Trades have been stigmatized as "low-class" jobs, even though a journeyman certificate is a far better career booster than a gender studies degree.
"Tax the rich, get the poor into trades" would do a great job of solving inequality. Then layer in repatriating supply chains back away from overseas sweatshops, and we'd be in good shape.
Thomas Piketty explained and documented in his 2014 book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," how and why capitalism inexorably produces increasingly extreme inequality of wealth unless it is regulated and taxed or periodically disrupted by destructive wars and/or revolutions. (We now know that pandemics seem to have the opposite effects.) It seems to me that we may soon be testing the upper limit on wealth inequality. It may be that limiting factor will turn out to be resulting war or revolution. We'd be wiser if we tried some regulation and taxation before we get to that point, but it seems that the greater the inequality, the less chance we will have to try those methods.
"tax the rich" is not the only mantra on the left for eliminating income inequality. It is not even the #1 mantra.
#1 is use QUOTAS in the work-place in every decision.
#2 is Equal Pay Regardless of Merit.
#3 might be Tax The Rich, but that doesn't actually address INCOME. That addresses wealth, which is a different thing.
#1 driver of income inequality is GLOBALIZATION. You can learn that there was little globalization in the '50s & '60s.
Thanks for your input, Leo.