I'm not entirely convinced this is a real problem.
|Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured |
(Note: Ignore the struck out portion, as it is inconvenient to my argument).
OK, so the Hard Left's answer to this "problem" is taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor? But that (at least theoretically) wouldn't alter anything one iota in that a) the income statistics are almost always displayed on a pre-tax basis and b) transfer payments likewise are rarely included.
So theoretically we could transfer ALL the money of wealthy people to the poor... and the poor would still be poor, but the rich would also be poor. Theoretically this sounds like a very bad "solution" to the income inequality "problem", no?
In any case, I'm just not sensing that these rich folks are screwing the rest of us (especially considering the fact that they probably had to go to college for 6 to 8 years, accrued some massive debt, and spent another decade plus building up a practice). Think about it... how much of the total wealth of our nation do the 1 percenters deserve? 50%? 80%? Every cent of it?
No, not every cent, as the result of that would be mass starvation and death. But what if the combined wealth of the richest 1 percent was more that of the other 99 percent of people combined? 1 percent owned 99 percent and 99 percent owned 1 percent, in other words?
Sounds fair to me. And that is what the state of affairs will be by next year (2016), according to this article I just Googled.
Why would anyone disagree with me on this? Please, enlighten me here.