Is fighting economic inequality a moral issue?

Question

Equalizing economic inequality is the same as saying " Bob has more than Joe. If Bob has more than joe. Steal from Bob and give it to Joe." I should think any moron would see how immoral that is. Just because it's not dome by a criminal and the government is doing the theft. It's still immoral.

Answer 1

That's not quite the concept.
Let's take you, for instance, as a consumer. When you enter the market to buy either goods or services, it's just you and your own intelligence and schooling you have to rely on.
Big business, on the other hand, comes to the market with teams of lawyers, hoards of marketing experts who studied how you think, teams of sales person who have been trained with just the correct thing to say, and so forth.
In other words, millions of dollars has been spent and many very intelligent people have worked on preparing the sale of the goods or services to you. The product or service sold comes with reams of fine print. And, it's that fine print that leads to the problems.
This is where the idea of equalizing economic inequality comes in. The government should be on your side regulating these firms so you don't get taken to the cleaners. This concept shouldn't stop in the comsumer field. It should also apply to labor relations with big business as well.
There is a big problem today with centralization of wealth among CEOs and execs of big businesses. Their bonuses for achieving earning goals have grown out of proportion and far exceed the wages earned by the people whose hands actually produce the product or service sold. Such wealth earned by a big business should be more evenly shared by everyone who is responsible for the success of the company, not just the people at the top.
Whenever wealth is concentrated by an elite, the well being of the majority suffers. Concentration of wealth creates pressure for socialistic government programs, such as the national heathcare pressure of today.
If you want to continue to live without the burden of massive government entitlement progarms, equalizing economic inequality, or stopping the concentration of wealth, should be a pretty darn important issue to you.

Answer 2

Tough question. IMHO, it is not immoral to have economic inequality. All other things being equal, a person's income is usually directly proportional to the usefulness of the work a person does (except in some special cases). It is natural and moral to give people who perform more demanding and useful jobs more money. However, it is a moral obligation, again IMHO, that we ensure that no body falls below a certain standard of living. So we should not attempt to make all people equally rich (or equally poor) but rather we should ensure that nobody has to go without food, shelter, education etc . After that any body who makes more money should be free to keep it without having to worry that Robinhood (disguised as the state) will steal it from him/her to give it to people who have not earned it.

Answer 3

I do not believe it is just, as black and white, as you have written here. The conscience of a nation is very telling of signs of decay or signs of greatness. Does a great nation allow hard working people to starve? Does your conscience allow you to walk by a women with 2 kids who works 40 hours a week who goes without food, so her kids can eat, and not offer her a meal? Does it allow you to turn your nose up at a 59 year old widow whose worked at a factory for 20 years, and when she is close to retirement the factory is shutdown, and now she has no job, no pension, no husband for support, and is years away from medicare? Also, is it stealing? Did you know 2 billion dollars was misplaced in Iraq? Congress is trying to figure out what happened to our tax dollars over there. Would you rather of had it used to establish a program for the working poor and elderly misplaced workers or just misplaced? Some give a little, some give all, and some give none. Which are you? You may be middle class, and struggle to take care of your own; however, supporting a politician who is willing to help the working poor would be giving a little. Doing some research and supporting a good foundation that helps is giving a little. I myself searched for a working struggling family, who never asked for anything, I send them a money order of $300.00 a month to help w/food, car insurance ect...I have robbed knowone to help them, and I have a clean conscience. They do not know it is from me, but I know they needed it, and it has helped them to a point that I will be able to stop soon. I agree with the man below me.

Answer 4

As a small business owner, I am constantly looking for ways to expand my client base. Sure, sometimes it hurts to be penalized for doing well, but you must think long term. If a minor economic investment is made in the education or advancement of a minority group, and this minority group is then able to join main stream society, then as a business owner I have more people to sell my product to. It all works out in the end. However I do agree that investments in minorities in the past have been mismanaged and have not yielded the returns expected.

Answer 5

The democrats are trying to be like Robin Hood. Steal (tax) from the corrupt wealthy who earn it and give it to the poor.

Sad part about this is that perfectly healthy people are sitting on their front porch in poor neighborhoods drinking and doing drugs instead of putting their efforts into something positive in their lives, like getting a job. But the politicians feel that it is their duty to give something back to these people for getting them elected.

Answer 6

It is a moral issue, Bob would certainly think it is immoral in your example.

I prefer the idea of teaching someone to fish over giving them a fish. We need training and educational opportunities, not just money handouts.

Answer 7

It's simple really, it's easy for political wing-nuts to "preach" to the poor suffering masses and tell them they are going to take from the rich and give it back to them in government run programs, sort of a modern day Robin Hood fantasy. Since there are "more" poor than "rich" the political panderers go for the group that can give them more votes.

Answer 8

So, robber barons and billionaires who have no compassion for the people are examples of how moral people live? I think not.

You are also being very simple, it's more than just "Bob has more than Joe".

Low income is linked to low standards of living, we all have a common interest in seeing standards of living go up in where we live, no?

Answer 9

Inequality is immorality because it is depriving others of what they should have under the law. People must be equally treated when in similar situations.