The goal of reducing income differentials is consistent with inpoverishing the nation and reducing the American middle class to poverty. This game plan has been tried, successfully, before in the old Soviet Union, modern day Cuba, the old China and in much of the underdeveloped world.
Other than the political class, all other citizens are simply reduced to slavery. That way, if you don't count the political class, the old Soviet Union was the type of society that produced an income distribution that would satisfy the most radical of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd.
If reducing inequality is the primary goal, as opposed to trying to improve living standards for the poor and the lower income population, then economic growth need no longer be an objective. Indeed, economic growth is no longer necessary. Economic growth may as well be negative -- and likely will be.
I like to sing country and western songs. Perhaps George Straight and I should have the same income. That would certainly reduce inequality. One way to achieve that objective is to simply legislate that George and I have the exact same income from our singing career. I'm for that!
Similary, I like to play golf. Perhaps Tiger and I should have the same income at that activity as well.
One way to accomplish this is to make George and Tiger get paid exactly what I get paid for singing and playing golf. Then we would have the same income from such activities. The amount wouldn't be much, but at least it would be the same for all three of us.
I wonder if George and Tiger would still sing and play golf if they were paid what I am paid for singing and playing golf. Oh well, does it matter anyway. At least we would all have same income -- nothing -- and the problem of inequality would be eliminated -- at least between the three of us.
0 Nhận Xét