Robin Hood Redux
So, here’s a question sure to rile up the closet-economists on this site:
What level of wealth disparity is morally acceptable?
Now, at the far left end of the economic spectrum is pure communism, where everyone owns everything, and there is, literally, no disparity whatsoever. Even if this hadn’t been quite efficiently disproven as a workable economic model through the Twentieth Century, I think most people agree that some disparity is appropriate. A brain surgeon should make more than the guy making French fries at Mickey D’s.
At the far right end of the spectrum is a completely free market, where there are no government programs designed to level the playing field at all. No tax (or else a flat one), no minimum wage, no Medicaid, no unemployment benefits. No tariffs, no deductions. Nothing. You get what you get. You keep what you get. The government only takes enough to keep you from getting killed by bad people, and they take it from everyone in equal measure. Theoretically, they could literally take the exact same sum from everyone equally. It’s not like a rich person can die twice, can they?
So, my question is, how far down that right-hand path remains moral? Is it moral, for example, for a single person to own everything and have employees making just enough to survive. That isn’t likely to happen, of course… but the question is, do we have a moral obligation to avoid extreme wealth disparity? And if so, what level is acceptable? And if some level is not acceptable, how should that be accomplished?
These questions tie into minimum wage, income tax structure, estate taxes, welfare, etc, etc, etc. But I don’t know that we’ve ever looked at in from this broader perspective.
Thoughts?
UPDATE: David replies here.
What level of wealth disparity is morally acceptable?
Now, at the far left end of the economic spectrum is pure communism, where everyone owns everything, and there is, literally, no disparity whatsoever. Even if this hadn’t been quite efficiently disproven as a workable economic model through the Twentieth Century, I think most people agree that some disparity is appropriate. A brain surgeon should make more than the guy making French fries at Mickey D’s.
At the far right end of the spectrum is a completely free market, where there are no government programs designed to level the playing field at all. No tax (or else a flat one), no minimum wage, no Medicaid, no unemployment benefits. No tariffs, no deductions. Nothing. You get what you get. You keep what you get. The government only takes enough to keep you from getting killed by bad people, and they take it from everyone in equal measure. Theoretically, they could literally take the exact same sum from everyone equally. It’s not like a rich person can die twice, can they?
So, my question is, how far down that right-hand path remains moral? Is it moral, for example, for a single person to own everything and have employees making just enough to survive. That isn’t likely to happen, of course… but the question is, do we have a moral obligation to avoid extreme wealth disparity? And if so, what level is acceptable? And if some level is not acceptable, how should that be accomplished?
These questions tie into minimum wage, income tax structure, estate taxes, welfare, etc, etc, etc. But I don’t know that we’ve ever looked at in from this broader perspective.
Thoughts?
UPDATE: David replies here.
Comments