Income Equality is good.

ToasterMinistry

Tbh I don't know if my opponent CAN make their arguments first, so I'll just post this so my opponent can.

Well whoever accepts anyways.

MayCaesar

Income equality is inconsistent with the principle of merit-based reward. If you reward two people's work with the same prize regardless of the quality of that work, then there is no incentive for either person to strive to work harder, and there is every incentive to do as little as humanly possible, while still receiving the benefits.

In other words, income equality results in a dead economy in which nobody does anything beyond the bare necessary minimum. That is why all the socialist experiments in human history have failed miserably, and will always fail miserably - and those did not even offer absolute income equality, and merely offered a much higher degree of income equality than free market-based economies do.

How do you imagine income equality could possibly work in a way that does not lead to this outcome?

AmericanFurryBoy

If we had income equality, our economies would fail. If we pay everyone the same to do different jobs, then the money simply becomes worthless because it all just goes back to the government, or gets destroyed, because there isn’t anything to do with it.

AlofRI

We do not need income equality. Still, we can not allow such a HUGE gap between income levels. If the sellers have 90% of the money …. who's going to buy what they sell?? How much OF it can they buy?? A good economy comes when there is somewhat of a balance. People can afford what is produced.

What we have now is getting more and more similar to what Russia has, an oligarchy. A few of the wealthiest get to pay little or no taxes, get to absorb most of the nation's treasure, get to buy their own laws and regulations, and make deals with the richest "leader" (money is power).

We just need a closer equality so we have more buyers, with money (not credit), for the sellers. The "gap" is MUCH too wide for a good economy. There is too much money at the top (well over 80%), so, who's buying … except on credit??

I've heard about this "greatest economy in history"! It is nothing of the sort. A great economy is where we don't have to live on credit, where we can educate our kids without going bankrupt (either us or them), we can put some in the bank for a "rainy day", we can afford healthcare (again, without going bankrupt), and we can support a family with one job. We need a lot more equality, not equal equality

billbatard

i agre in fact for a society to suvive it is essential

Oppolzer

There's an evident gap between the poor and the rich. Although, total equality is blatantly undesirable. It results in stagnation, doesn't provide an incentive, and ruins innovation and progress. Albeit, total inequality is not any better. Wealth inequality becomes a repugnant injustice when it's extreme, in which it lowers an individuals happiness and satisfaction, and discourages participation in life.

I perceive that income equality is neither good nor bad. A moderate level is enough, in which it still provides an incentive for people to work hard and does not rob anyone at a fair chance to money regardless of where they were born. The problem is not the principle; it's the quantity. No one desires complete equality, and no one wants an extreme level of inequality.

I agree with @AlofRI  in the sense that we need somewhat of a balance, where one is not extremely dominating over the other.

MayCaesar

@Oppolzer

I do not see income inequality, no matter the degree, as a problem in a society with a proper culture based on respect for the individual freedoms and liberties.

If the economy is doing well, and even the poorest people enjoy a very decent quality of life, then it makes no difference whether the top 20% have 10 times as much wealth as the bottom 20%, or 1,000,000 as much wealth: people enjoy a high quality of life, and the fact that some enjoy even higher quality of life is a boon, not a curse.
If the economy is not doing well, and a large fraction of the population lives in extreme poverty, then income inequality may be a symptom, but it cannot be the source of such a matter of affairs. There are deep problems in the economy that need to be addressed, and the inequality in itself is merely their manifestation.

The problem is that most modern cultures assess individuals in the society based on relative comparison, as opposed to the absolute scale. If the person Y is doing much better than the person X, then the person X will often want the person Y to share their success with them.

I may be an odd duck in this regard. When I see someone who is doing much better than me, it only encourages me to work harder, so I can live as well as them eventually. It absolutely does not lead to me thinking, "If only they gave me some of what they have..." I like it when people are rich and happy, and I would not want to become richer than I am currently by taking away from them, I would prefer to build my own wealth.
If the society as a whole saw it that way, then extreme income inequality, in fact, could be a positive factor, as it would propel large masses of people to work very hard to join the upper classes. If someone had a personal spaceship, for example, everyone would want to get their own personal spaceship, and people would get very inventive in their attempts to join the elite club of spaceship owners.

Equality breeds contentment, which is harmful both for the economy and the individuals. Inequality breeds either resentment or ambition, based on the societal culture, the former being harmful and the latter being healthy for the economy. Hence, I would argue that it is the culture we should focus on changing, not the inequality, if we really want to uplift the lower classes.

Plaffelvohfen

@ToasterMinistry

How do you understand "Income equality"? I think it only exist in theory and would be absurd in reality...  The implications of enforcing income equality would be suicidal for any society if you really think about it...

@MayCaesar

You wrote : Equality breeds contentment, which is harmful both for the economy and the individuals.

How is being happy and satisfied harmful to the economy and individuals?? Isn't it why we do anything?

Oppolzer

@MayCaesar

I agree that the culture of a country has a significant influence on the country's prosperity. However, the political decisions and current economic state can undoubtedly have an impact as well.

Regarding underdeveloped countries, economic development is necessary in the case of poverty. Economic development refers to more significant input and output of products, more industries/fields the country specializes in, and an overall rise in GDP (over time.) But poverty, in general, requires more than merely economic development, such as cultural development, as you've expressed. The beliefs, values, priorities, and desires of a country certainly have an impact on society, especially in terms of the income of an individual.

Economic development tends to come from the government, and cultural development is up to society as a whole. I think economic development can influence culture, and culture can affect economic growth. It's a two-way, continuous process, and is always subject to change.

MayCaesar

Plaffelvohfen said:

How is being happy and satisfied harmful to the economy and individuals?? Isn't it why we do anything?

I will differ from the majority of people here in that I will say that "happy" and "satisfied" are mutually contradicting terms. Let me elaborate on that.

When you are happy, then you look at your life with optimism, eagerness. You are looking forward to tomorrow, to see what it brings, to experience new things and enjoy them.
When you are satisfied, on the other hand, then you are content with what you have. You do not expect tomorrow to be qualitatively better than today, because you are already fine with where things stand.
Happiness is a state of continuous excitement. Satisfaction is a state of continuous apathy.

The difference in effects on the individual's behavior is profound.
A happy individual is full of energy and constantly does something that makes their life even better than before - and in the economical space, it results in high activity and productivity, in innovative and out-of-the-box thinking.
A satisfied individual, on the other hand, is relaxed, slow, apathetic. They will not do much outside the minimum they need to maintain their state of satisfaction. They have no reason to do or think anything else, because they already are at the point where they are fine with where things stand.

A truly successful individual is never satisfied. The individual may be happy; the individual may enjoy their current state; but the individual always wants more from life than they already have. This drive to constant improvement of one's life on a societal scale is a necessary condition for the economy to consistently grow, improving everyone's quality of life.

Economies full of happy people in the long run will always surpass economies full of satisfied people.

AlofRI

The United States, and a lot of the world, is headed in the direction of the Russian economy. A few powerful persons at the top who have most of their nations treasure, aligned with an authoritarian leader, a public that is neither happy nor satisfied, and no way to change it short of civil war. The "wave" must be stopped. Our own leaders regime must be stopped. (It's NOT an "administration" ... too many "acting" and "appointed" persons that can only "take orders" not get legislation passed). I've lived through 14 Presidents, this is my 15th and I've never seen anything like this. If it doesn't change your children will have little chance to be happy or satisfied. Good luck. I can only worry about mine and theirs, and feel sorry for yours. Sad.

AlofRI

AlofRI said:

The United States, and a lot of the world, is headed in the direction of the Russian economy. A few powerful persons at the top who have most of their nations treasure, aligned with an authoritarian leader, a public that is neither happy nor satisfied, and no way to change it short of civil war. The "wave" must be stopped. Our own leaders regime must be stopped. (It's NOT an "administration" ... too many "acting" and "appointed" persons that can only "take orders" not get legislation passed). I've lived through 14 Presidents, this is my 15th and I've never seen anything like this. If it doesn't change your children will have little chance to be happy or satisfied. Good luck. I can only worry about mine and theirs, and feel sorry for yours. Sad.

You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand

billbatard

I would say it is essential