we care about both how much they make and the gap---i think they are largely linked anyway. unsuccessful/unstable countries often have the highest gaps. the US had an amazingly small gap postWWII, and now it is growing. the reason for concern. besides, exploitation of the poor by the rich is a recurring theme in the history of the world. the US would be wise to create policy to lower the gap within the general framework of capitalism.
I'd say simplify the federal government and get rid of a lot of loopholes. Rich people in the US are rich in the US, and there is a value to that. Currently, rich people exploit the government and make it harder for poorer people to succeed because of crippling regulations. The two are in cahoots. Also, whatever happened to the government being anti-monopoly? There are so many huge companies now, when one fails the government feels it is their responsibility to take tax-payer dollars and bail them out. I say break up these companies and invest in competition again. I'd argue that super rich companies without much competition are not as good for the poor and middle class as a larger group of companies that are forced to spend money and think outside the box to compete with one another. You may say that large companies benefit society through R&D, but I think they do so in a lesser way than government run R&D would. The later is less about profit and more about shooting for the moon, etc.
Good question and all the answers aren't clear, but certainly the super rich don't need to be rewarded with special tax breaks. Throughout history, from the Fall of Rome to the French Revolution to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, when the bulk of a country's wealth get increasing concentrated in a tiny elite while the bulk of the population struggles to get by . . . it results in unrest, civil discord, and revolution.
why is the gap relevant? if the poor are doing ok, then why does it matter that the rich are doing super ok? freedom means some people will really put out an effort and be crazy rich, and some will just barely get by. thats just the way it is. we wouldnt need to "break up" anything. we could just let them fail. monopolies do not really exist without government assistance. of course obama loves to shovel taxpayer money to big corporations more than anyone, that what "hope" and "change" are i guess.
[sarcasm]But martin, it isn't fair that the children of the super rich get to inherit money and become super rich without being productive members of society. The money they invest in stocks and bonds is of now value to society. [/sarcasm]
the premise that the poor people are doing how they are doing because they are held back by the rich is not true. i shouldnt even call them "poor". they are poorer than the rich, but not all that poor by global standards. ....well, ok it is true. it is true in the sense that the government crushes poor folks with stuff like cash for clunkers and farm subsidy and all sort of huge bailouts. but as far as the free market goes, the rich do not exploit the poor, they help them immensely by buying the things they make and giving them jobs. if anyone is currently opposed to poor people, it is obama, bailing out companies for billions. why not take that same money and spend it on infrastructure that helps poor folks? maybe a nice commuter train or improvements to the new york subway? i could use more late night E trains. perhaps some nice bridges or more cops in crappy neighborhoods? things that actually help folks? instead he throws 1 TRILLION at "toxic assets". poor people should want the wage gap as large as possible, as long as it doesnt mean their wealth is less. a huge gap means there are rich folks who like to buy lots of things. the kind of things you can sell them. a poor chinaman doesnt say "aww dang america is so rich i hate them". he says "i sell crap to them and make mirron dorrers!".
Geez, did you read my last post! I'll repeat it once again for the dense and the thick among us. The increasing gap indicates that the trickle-down theory of economics doesn't work. Call it Reagonomics, call it supply-side economics, it doesn't matter. Of course, the super-rich make more money, but if it trickled down then the other four curves would not be clustered at the bottom. This includes people in the 99th percentile, you know--rich guys by any standards. When the top 1% race away from all other income groups, then the tax breaks rained on them isn't trickling down, it is being accumulated.
subsidize daycare, preK. put real money into education. 10-15 kids per teacher. pay teachers more. shorten summer. develop a real vocational option. invest more in higher ed. make it as easy as possible for the brightest of other countries to come here to study, work, live as possible for as long as they want. invest more in research---biggest bang for the $$$. i dont know. but there is a strong negative correlation between country stability and gap as i posted before.
