Income inequality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Income inequality - Essay Example In simplest terms, because moral inequality causes harm, and has little to no mitigating positive effects to society, then it is morally wrong (Krugman). This is the same reasoning used by Frank, framed another way, by pointing out that in fact income inequality is a moral issue because in fact economics was the child of moral philosophy, being born into existence by moral philosophers. Income inequality being a subject that falls within the discipline of economics, it makes sense that at its very root income inequality is a moral issue (Frank). The social Darwinist position on income inequality is that it is in essence the way nature operates, revealed in the workings of the economic system of human beings in society. This being so, the social Darwinists argue that the best course is to essentially leave things as they are, and to let people do as they please and according to what they see as working to their best interest, and see how things go. The government making attempts to ad dress social inequalities, such as inequalities in income, does not work for the best interest of society, because it would go against the working of nature. In the area of income inequality, Frank and Krugman each in their own way point out the natural practical consequences of the Darwinist position. Where a few manage to get a substantial portion of the economic pie, that few can begin to exert considerable influence on the various political and economic processes in the country, twisting the processes for their own gain. These are the modern lobbies. Frank points out that it is this strong influence of the few and the rich that has led to the Darwinist position yielding reduced tax rates for those who are already wealthy, in turn further increasing inequality in income. Krugman has his own examples of the impact of the Darwinist position and the chronically strong power of moneyed interests in corrupting the political process, mirroring the example of Frank. One such case cited by Krugman is with regard to the awarding of tax breaks to hedge funds by the legislative branch, even if such tax breaks resulted in revenue losses for the government. The hedge funds were big contributors to the political campaigns of the lawmakers who voted in favor of the tax breaks. It is essentially the working out of the Darwinist position in real life. The powerful hedge funds, working for their own interests, have been able to bend the political and legislative process to favor them (Frank; Krugman). The gist of the arguments against income inequality on the other hand, are those that speak of the many harms that income inequality pose on society, on various levels, as itemized and discussed in some depth by Krugman. The first is that income inequality fosters social inequality, and social inequality in turn breeds its own ills. Including that it forces families across all economic groups to be part of a treadmill of trying to keep up with each other economically, with disa strous socially negative consequences in turn. The rat race has resulted in more bankruptcies as parents try to fight for space in neighborhoods that can give their children a leg up in the race too, by being able to go into good schools in good school districts, as an example. Elsewhere data suggests that parent status correlates with the educational outcomes of children too, further elevating the pressure on parents to compete and win the rat race, for their children's sake.