Earlier this quarter we saw a video detailing the incredible inequality of wealth in America. This video was striking but was really describing income inequality, which we know is different than wealth inequality. Nevertheless, the video described the differences between what most Americans think should be the distribution, what they think it actually is, and the real income inequality. The results were startling and need to be discussed further. However, there are some important things that the video leaves out, most notably the concept of income mobility (just skim the main ideas), which we will talk a lot about this week. One of our readings for the week is about inequality in America and it's potential threat to democracy and as something that may contradict the American political ideal of equality of opportunity. I would like you to address this issue using any of the following as a starting point. Please start a discussion with one another and refer to each other's comments when possible.
Is income inequality and/or wealth inequality a problem for America politically or socially? Does it contradict fundamental American political ideals, or does it reinforce the American Dream by supporting a meritocracy where one can succeed if they work hard? Finally, what should the role of government be in terms of providing assistance to the poor or helping to reduce the income or wealth inequality in America?
I believe that income/wealth inequality can be both political and social. Of course, socially, being that money determines where one lives, can shop, etc... More importantly it extends to political in the form of government assistance which further extends to assistance in schools, jobs, and so on. I believe that America was built with a focus on equality but did not plan for how that equality would manifest. When it comes to wealth the idea of equlity seems to dissipate. Whether one believes that through hard work alone should be how wealth is accumulated or not, most can agree that we are taught that by working hard we will become successful. Since America is a captitalist country there will always be a focus on what one can achieve through hard work as opposed to helping those who struggle. Even if it is not stated, one knows that to recieve help is looked down upon even though it should not be. The last question is a difficult one. As with most things there are people who truly need the system and those who abuse it. I believe the government should provide aid to those who need help but the system needs to be enforced so that those who are abusing the system will not receive aid. I do believe that the government does like to have control over people and perhaps that is why the rules in place are not enforced strictly...
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to say what the government could do to those with the majority of the wealth. The college kid in me says to tax them more, but the future P.A. feels differently.
Income inequality and wealth inequality can be viewed both as problems for America both socially and politically. It is no secret that individuals with more wealth and income, in general, have more opportunities to move upwards both socially and politically. The biggest challenge is how to close the gap between the rich and poor without creating a redistribution system. The government should create a priority working list to help disabled individuals, veterans, and lower income families. Americans come from all different walks of life and various starting points. Obviously, some starting positions are much more advantageous then others. This inherently works against the bottom 90%. However, individuals do own their decisions. I do believe this because one can move upwards in America even if they begin with a short deck of cards. Both my father and mother came from lower income city families and they are very successful because of their hard work and sound decisions.
ReplyDeleteIncome and wealth inequality are a problem for America both politically and socially. Politically, people will eventually get fed up with economic inequality like we did with racial inequality. Social inequality might result in crimes and disparities do to poverty causing an unstable economy.
ReplyDeleteMeritocracy is possible; I mean a poor person with nothing to his name can become vary successful. Yes some groups might need to jump more hoops to get to their goal but it is possible, that’s what America is known for. And if you think your group is facing a disadvantage you have the right to organize and lobby for your cause. Martin Luther King did it, and he among others paved the way for one of their own to get the highest office in the country. There should be assistance to the poor, getting them out of their situation rather then maintaining their situation.
Income inequality is both a social and political problem. Class plays a huge role in the social and political experiences of and individual. Class inequality is something that the government has a lot of power to fix, but social views have to be altered before political change can be made.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very important for the government to assist the poor and to straighten out the problem of wealth inequality. Of course there will be those who abuse the system that is put in place, but in order to provide people with equal opportunity, equal resources and aid needs to be provided. I disagree with the other posts in that I don't think that we live in a meritocracy- there are so many factors that prevent marginalized, especially lower-class people, from succeeding because of the way our society functions. When the rich are enabled to get richer and no assistance is given to the poor and no action is taken to lessen the enormous inequality in our country, the American ideal of equality and mobility is in danger.
Welfare, food stamps, affordable housing are all resources that should have more support from our society. There should be tax transparency and more restrictions for corporations put in place by the government to ensure that more money goes to the government and those who really need it instead of to making the rich richer.
I agree with the previous comments that income inequality is simultaneously a political and social problem. The opinions of the people in the lowest income group do not have the same weight as the people’s opinions in the highest income group. Policies are strongly shaped to cater those individuals at the top and tend to ignore the needs of the people at the bottom. I have never believed in the existence of the American Dream. Even if disadvantaged people work tremendously hard and dedicate all their time and effort into educating themselves, they still will not be able to naturally compete with individuals who are handed their futures through means of class advantages. Our current system allows for the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer. I believe that the government should provide ample assistance and aid to the poor. Proper tax distribution should be employed to reduce the severe inequality found in our society. Although the wealthy may not think it is their obligation to “give” their money to the government for “undeserving” individuals, they should be required to contribute a proportional share of taxes that aids programs that will correct the inequality. The poor in this country will never have the means to escape their situation without significant government reform through supportive programs, which can be funded, without harm, by the percent of Americans who are better off.
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, income inequality should only be a social problem because, if 90% of the population of a democracy wants something to change, they should be able to make it change because they have the vast majority. Unfortunately it doesn't happen that way and the income inequality in this country is both a social and political problem. The 90% of people in the bottom tier somehow do not have the weight of the 1% in the top tier. There are a few reasons for this. The first being that with all that money comes connections and they are able to sway the people in the powerful positions who make the decisions into not taxing them heavily and letting them keep their vast wealth. The second being that the political parties are at completely different sides of the spectrum right now and very little can be done in the middle working between both parties. This is important because the two sides have opposite views on taxes, who should be taxed, how money can be acquired, etc. and the fact that they cannot come to agreements on this makes change impossible and what we have seen will continue.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that this inequality has occurred shows that the Founding Father's idea of the American Dream is indeed possible and they created a system where that dream is achievable. Unfortunately that American Dream is only benefitting the individual these days. There isn't enough money to support everyones American Dream and when those people are unable to achieve what they want on their own they are forced to go to the Government for help. The people who's dreams do come true are unwilling to help the others because they feel that they earned that money and do not feel they should have to pay for someone else just because they were successful and the other person wasn't. Therefore I believe it does reinforce the American Dream, I just think the American Dream idea is much different then it was during the time of the Founding Fathers.
The government is stuck between a rock and a hard place with regards to this inequality. The lawmakers know that if they speak out and say that they need to raise taxes in order to aid the poor, they will be ridiculed and attacked for it during their next election by someone who is willing to say anything just to get the public office. On the other side if they continue to do nothing there will be even more of an inequality and the middle class will disappear. I am personally of the belief that it is the government's duty to look after all of its citizens and that means that some will have to make certain sacrifices for the good of the nation because, in the end, those people still need the government and are under the protection of the nation. To quote South Park, "if you don't like it, you can get out!"
I also agree that income inequality is both a social and political problem. The citizens of the highest income group have a large amount of political power. They have the ability to use their money to get what they want. These people tend to be very influential in society, so they also have many political connections. However, these people only consist of the top 1% of the country. I strongly believe that the government should have a large role in helping the poor and creating more equality for the country. One of the main principles this country was founded on was the idea of equality. I agree that everyone should have equal opportunities and resources, however currently, that is not the case. I believe that there would be more chances for the true "American Dream" if this country truly practiced the principles that it was founded on.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe the issue of income inequality is both a political and social issue. There is simply no proper funtionality for a democracy when there is shades of class warfare and oligarchy. It is interesting that the issue is divided into political and soial, when the two are honestly far more intertwined than the are made out to be. Income inequality is obviously a political issue in the sense of political action and policy, but that political policy has immediate impact on the social existence of the middle class. It is no secret that the wealthy hold far more power in this country,and that includes a larger political voice/say. Income inequality is a dangerous game because aside from the blatant impacts it has on the economy, it is a shot right to the heart of American values of equality. America is not based off of the financially elite holding say over an entire nation and controlling politics. Equality doesn't mean socialism to Americans, it means a fair shot at success, even a chance so possibly that hard work can pay off, when currently tens of millions work hard every day with virtually zero chance of economic mobility, and a political voice far too meager compared to the elite counterparts. The role of government should be comparable in some respects to FDR's style of politics (New Deal-esque). That means our government should exist to protect those who are lacking opportunity, give them a chance, and institute political plans whenever possible to build the nation from the middle out, not from the top down. Majority rules, not the 1%.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this blog post is screaming "Come one come all for internet rage." In light of that-- I do think people have brought up some good points.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah that our meritocracy doesn't hold up to the cultural myths that we've been told since we were children. It isn't as simple as saying, "If you work hard, you will succeed." Of course, there will always be a place at the top for extraordinary talent, but alas, it is a cold truth that very few people are truly extraordinary. The exceptions can not become a rule that is is possible to rise above your class.
I also agree with the idea that America needs to return to the principles of the New Deal. The problem with that idea-- although I agree with it in principle-- is that recycling old ideas rarely yields the same results as they did previously. America is stuck in a rut where new ideas are stricken down as somehow being anti-American or "socialist." Times are changing-- we no longer live in the 1930's. That being said, we can still find INSPIRATION in policies that have worked.
Income inequality is a problem politically and socially. Politically this cycle of unequal income distribution will make the American people very upset. Socially I believe crime rates in this country will increase due to more people in poverty, which will weaken the economy. I agree with Courtney with the idea that the government should have a large role in helping the poor in this country and create more equal opportunities for all races. If everyone got the same opportunities I believe there would be less people in poverty in this country. I believe the meritocracy where one can succeed if they work hard contradicts fundamental American political ideals. The American Dream is fading away more and more every day. I personally believe everyone can’t be rich; the system is set up to have a certain group of people with less. This is a country founded on capitalist ideals, and some individuals have worked the system very well. I also agree with Courtney in that this country was founded on equality and everyone should have the same opportunities and resources. However, this is not a reality today certain ethnic groups don’t have the same resources and opportunities than others; which is why they are more likely to not succeed. I agree with Courtney in that the American Dream would be more of a reality if this country practiced its principals. Ultimately the role of government should be to assist the poor, with putting them on a path to succeed. I also believe the government should raise taxes on the top 2 percent, lower taxes on the middle-class which will take the burden off of the middle-class and ultimately create a more level playing field.
ReplyDeleteSince everyone has pretty much said what I was going to say already haha, I will try go more into specifics/ out there stuff I guess. I agree with some people above that said the top tiers of Americans should be required to pay a much higher tax rate, but I think that it should be the top, say something like the .075% and up, not necessarily people who make $100,000 or $200,000 and those sorts of larger, but still middle class, salaries. I think this would be the most reasonable, seeing as these people are making over two million dollars a year, and as someone earlier said, no "harm" would come to them. They could still maintain the lifestyles they felt they had "earned" and the government could be getting more money. However I would structure it with many tiers within that top group, and as the person got progressively richer after that tipping point, they would see a large jump in each level of tax increase. Thus, the people in the top .001 would be giving a lot back. I know this sounds sort of crazy but maybe a certain percentage could be designated from these top 1% individual's higher taxes, and could be put into a government fund. Then the government could solve the problems of the poor in two ways, through the existing systems with the taxes as they currently attempt to do, but then donate the money in the fund to charities that some committee of experts would decide did a lot of good on a year by year basis. This would be a very large sums of money that would be allotted. The charities would also have to prove very low overhead,spend all of that money in the domestic arena, etc. I have worked a lot with UMCOR and Habitat, and on the ground in the South in the few years after Katrina (and especially right away) they seemed to have accomplished much more than FEMA had. This is the reason why I think the money should be given to private charities to use, as they may already have local knowledge of situations, the infrastructure and connections in place to make real positive change, and the lack of buracracy to slow down decisions and responses to real problems of poverty, such as hunger, etc. that needed to be solved yesterday. The rest of the additional revenue that came from large tax increases for the very very very high earners could be a new, stronger focus on job placement and preparing people to work better jobs at the same time. Something would be put in place to make education even free in some cases, such as skills training, or a class or two at a community college, or more affordable for higher levels, such as better college loans, so that these impoverished people would eventually be able to help themselves. The idea is that maybe over time, the cost might actually be less to train some people in basic skills/ etc. for free than pay to support them for the rest of their life, which to me sort of seems to appease both sides of the argument for and against giving aid.
ReplyDeleteI do understand that this could be really controversial with deciding which charities to give the money to, sort of like saying, "who matters more this year," and the fact that a lot of the major charities in the United States are associated with some form of religion, and should they not receive money because church and state should be totally separated, etc... however I think that there are certainly ways around these issues, and that it is much more efficient, effective, timely and other words generally meaning "a good idea" that we use organizations already in place and functioning at an extremely high level, rather than spend 10 years in congress trying to create something new, or let things continue for another 10 years while they try to figure out a way to fix the systems already in place.
I, like most of us on here, agree that income and wealth inequality are not only social problems, but also political problems. I took an American Studies class in Winter Quarter and we studied the idea of the American Dream through biographies. Benjamin Franklin's gave us the idea that if you work hard and educate yourself, you will achieve economic prosperity. Frederick Douglass's autobiography pointed out that while the idea of hard work and education will get you far, there are sometimes limitations that people involuntarily face in life, limitations they may be born into, like family class status, lower levels of wealth, and social hurdles like racism and sexism. Because of factors like these, not everyone is actually equal because not everyone has the same types of opportunities. This being said, I agree with "EJSKAW" that the government should create some sort of priority working list to help out those in need to level the playing field for them and create an equal opportunity for income mobility for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI think this is not a black and white issue, on one hand, we want a government that supports and cares about its citizens enough to attempt to make the income inequality gap as small as it possibly can, but at the same time, America was built for those who wants to rise up to something from nothing. This is the whole point of the American dream, that someone can be who they want to be if they put the time and work into it. For this reason it makes sense that there is an income inequality in our American government, because not everyone may have the same drive to become what they want to be. For these reasons, our system is going to have a gap in its income. So i feel as if this is something we strive to rid ourselves of but at the same time its not something that is defying the american ideals we all know and love.
ReplyDeleteI will say this now I don't care about income inequality, I care about poverty. It is childish and petty for me to complain about someone who has legally earned more money than me. They had something I did not opportunity, education, skills, intelligence, something. For me to demand them to give up their wealth because my life hasn't been as successful is petty. I don't care if the 1% has 99% of the wealth as long as the 99% have enough to live fulfilling lives. The "pie" is not static it grows and shrinks based on factors other than percentages. To "redistribute" wealth simply for that point is tyrannical, but if it will increase the pie on the whole then it should be done. The larger the pie the more prosperity there will be for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is a political or social problem. History has shown power will always be concentrated in the hands of one group either in the hands of soldiers, clergy, or businessmen. It is only a social problem when those who do not have wealth are unable to lead fulfilling lives. And if they are unable to lead fulfilling lives they there is a good chance that the pie could be bigger as the person is unable to be as productive as they would be otherwise.
I think that income inequality is an issue in America. The most obvious example of this is the inequality between men and women's income. I think using this example of income inequality reinforces the socialized norms of gender inequality.Income inequality creates both social and economic issues in America because it contradicts the concept of American Dream and Equality and Opportunity-- all cornerstones of what makes America what it is. Income differences between men and women contradict any form of meritocracy.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government could address income inequality more wholly. Legislation like the Lily Ledbetter Law is a step in the right direction, however, I do think that this law could me more closely monitored and more widely enforced. By allowing income inequality to continue we reinforce gender inequality which is unproductive to the future of america economically and socially.
From the very founding of our country, White, land-owning men were the only citizens allowed to vote and, so, the only people decision-makers gave a damn about. Some may be ashamed of this fact, but it was the 18th century - all countries were deplorable viewed through our 21st century, American lenses. The Founders created a framework for our nation to evolve, adapt and progress towards ideals that may never be fully attainable, but should never be given up on. Some cynics may view the American Dream merely as a myth. I see it as part of that set of ideals - though added it them after the Founders were long dead. It wasn't perfect when it was first conceived, it isn't perfect today, and it may never be perfect, but we should work diligently toward its perfection. The United States should be a country which rewards skill and hard work. Unfortunately, today as in the past, people confuse wealth or high income with a person's skill and hard work.
ReplyDeleteThe larger the income and wealth gap grows, the more socially and politically unstable the country will be. In the most extreme event in the most extreme extent of income/wealth disparity, a violent revolution or uprising would occur which may or may not be successful (i.e. affect change).
As long as the U.S. is a country we're people - specifically the wealthiest/highest income earners - generally prefer to live over other countries, the government can and should do more to help the "have nots" or "have not so muchs" of the country. I think the tipping point for the wealthiest/highest income earners to leave en masse from the U.S. or decrease in productivity or ingenuity is far higher than what is portrayed in the sensationalized, politicized media. The government should definitely not flirt with that point however.
It's difficult to make a decision one way or the other when it comes to addressing income inequality in America. I don't necessarily think the current situation is a "goal" of American culture (this vast separation) but I don't think there is really anything about our culture that should call for the inequality to be reduced either. Some people are in the right spot at the right time, some work hard, and some are just flat-out lucky. While the reverse it true as well, we shouldn't be restricting the growth of some and aiding the growth for others. The government shouldn't abandon its citizens either, but interference in this realm of our culture, even with good intentions, can be a slippery slope. While I believe there should be a progressive tax rate that taxes higher earners more, I don't think it should be substantially more. This is just the natural way things work out.
ReplyDeleteAlong these same lines I believe it does hold true to the American Dream. Of course there are cases in which some hard-working people are born into unfortunate circumstances and are simply unable to advance themselves no matter what they do, but that is not always true. It is possible for people to move up in economic status if they work hard and down if they don't apply themselves enough. Just because it may not be true for EVERYONE, we shouldn't discount the idea of the American Dream. It's obviously not as easy as it was originally made out to be and there are always cases that the will of the individual is overcome by unfortunate circumstances, but the Dream is still out there and there are many success stories to prove it.
I do believe the American Dream is still achievable if one works hard, however I do feel like as time goes by, the ability to achieve it gets harder and harder. External factors have definitely made it more difficult for hard work to be the sole factor of achieving the American Dream. As mentioned by most of you, I see income inequality/wealth a political and social issue. I agree with Leila and her thoughts on the rich’s ability to get politicians to cater to their needs and the difficult ability for a person of a low social class to advance up the social ladder. All of the advantages a person of a higher wealth status possesses put them way ahead of someone who does not come from the same community or established the connections. Though I do believe the government should intervene and redistribute some wealth to the poor, like Dana, I do not agree with the tax bracket that people making 100,000 or 200,000 should be taxed more. I believe this be applied to millionaires and up. People with high amounts of wealth maintain and strive for more money to protect their families future. I find it hard to tax hard working people higher amounts than others just because they make more. I get mad when I see my paycheck and the taxes I pay, especially when I see a messed up welfare program and some people taking advantage of it. Ultimately, it’s nice to think of America as a place where if you work hard, you will get rewarded, but unfortunately that is not as true as it used to be. Super wealthy people keep their money within their family lines. This process will continue to give them advantages over others who did not have the ability to have a fund passed on to them by a parent or grandparent. As I have said though, I can’t necessarily agree with taxing people who make more income than others, because it’s still nice to think meritocracy exists.
ReplyDeleteIncome and wealth inequality is only a problem if we view it as a problem. Politically and socially, this wealth inequality will never go away. Wealth inequality has always existed--and always will. Sure, the top 1% has most of the wealth in America. The wealth distribution is grossly unbalanced. However, I don't believe it is the government's job to fix that. The responsibility lies not with the government, but with the people. While I realize this sounds relatively unattainable, it doesn't have to be. By putting money back into the economy and into private organizations that have the goal of helping those in financial struggle, the government gets taken out of it. The question then becomes "How can we, as a nation, as people, fix this distribution issue," not "Is it the government's responsibility/job." The goal now is to use less government aid and create more programs that help people who want to raise themselves economically. Reliance on the government, I feel, only widens this gap between classes.
ReplyDeleteIncome and wealth inequality separates us from one another, which causes both political and social issues. People with lower incomes/wealth are forced to live in blighted areas in which very little political attention is brought. This means these communities are not equally represented with other communities of higher average income/wealth. The social issues connected to low income/wealth are seemingly endless. It makes the culture of that community very different than others. Just because someone does not have or make a lot of money does not mean that they are not smart or hard working in America. It is a problem that we have so many people in jobs that go no where, even though they are working just as hard if not harder than higher wage earners that have opportunities to move up. This is not a meritocracy. I think that state governments should set minimum wage higher to fit the cost of living of their given state. We should also be providing programing that addresses a need for higher skilled labor for people that do not have the money to attain a higher education. Wealth gives an individual an unfair advantage at birth over someone who's parents own virtually nothing. Also, a lot of our poor people come from one race, which has historically rooted reasons that are entirely not their fault. For example, African Americans couldn't take advantage of a lot of government programs that supported soldiers getting homes and higher educations when they got out of the war. This is what gave a lot of white families their wealth. The government should do something to take this into account and boost that group by giving them homes in good neighborhoods, like for example foreclosed homes, and offering them really low-interest, low cost payment plans to own them. Just an idea...
ReplyDeleteAs I believe Morgan was saying in class, there are always going to be poor people. Which is I believe is true, some people are just going to make more money and some people should make more than others, especially if they work really hard. However I think that the poor should maybe be less poor than they are, possibly meaning that minimum wage should be higher than it currently is. I do believe that their should be some government assistance, however like Morgan said there are people that take advantage of the system, which in turn hurts those who need it but are really trying and working to get ahead. I think that some form of income equality and wealth equality is part of the American ideal of meritocracy and individualism, however perhaps the real problem lies in how unequal the top and the bottom are.
ReplyDeleteposted for Mike R (on time):
ReplyDeleteIncome and wealth inequality are both huge problems politically and socially. Although our country praises freedom and equality, the fact that millions of people are living in poverty clearly contradicts that. The number of people below the "poverty line" doesn't even begin to tell the story of the vast differences of conditions between the rich and the poor. People can work 12 hour days every day and still never move out of the lower class. Meritocracy is a myth. The government's role is to provide assistance to the poor (and everyone else) from the beginning of their lives to the end, and when people try to pretend that they have never received any assistance from the government in their entire life, they are lying. If someone is a citizen, they should be guaranteed basic needs, even if some people take advantage of the system.
posted for Tom (9 pm):
ReplyDeleteI think income/wealth inequality are both social and political problems. Political in the sense that such ineqauity can be directly affected by public policy, and social in the sense that inequality (when at its extreme) can lead to social unrest. Especially if the governing body cuts the social safety net and those already at the lowest rung on the economic ladder are put into an even worse condition.
The second question I think really addresses the issue of the potential for social mobility, and this is where I get really confused and a little overwhelmed with the varying forms of data. I think I can read the data fairly well, the overwhelming part comes into play when seemingly similar data lead me to different conclusions. I would think that the inequality is an illustration of a system based on meritocracy, and the video with the Stonehill College professor and the Treasury data would seem to draw the conclusion that America is a very mobile nation. Other times though, I have heard figures that the U.S. is very immobile in comparison with other nations. One of the interesting things I thought the Treasury report neglected to do was differentiate between income and wealth, like we had discussed in class. Especially with its mobility figures, because while they argue a significant percentage of those in the top 1% fell out of that category, the commentary does not bring to light that these people rarely fell out of the highest quintile. And I am curious if those who fell out of the 1% were actually "less well off" or were simply shifting their money sources. The example that came to my mind was farmers able to write off their year as a loss, making them very cash poor, but sometimes very wealthy in assets, particularly land.
On the last question pertaining to the role of government, I am also torn. I think the government should play an active role in income inequality, but I don't know where to peg any particular tax rate or certain policy Also, from an incentive standpoint, there needs to be an argument made that it is somehow in the self-interests of the wealthiest to allow the government to take an active role in America's income distribution, especially since very large campaign donations come from some of the wealthiest Americans. All in all, I'm pretty torn on most of these questions
The income and wealth inequality is both a political and social problem in the United States. The more we neglect the poor such as not investing in public infrastructure an schools the more likely our country will slip into civil unrest. A classic example is the Arab Spring movement. The people had enough with there government not able to provide the basic necessities while a few live in extremely wealthy life styles. The income gap does not contradict the American Dream because in my opinion is American dream is achieving your goals by beating all odd to get there. The role of government to set a foundation to success not nurse everyone to wealth. The government should provide top notch schools, and provide innovating public infrastructure for everyone . Make the road to success as clear and easy just like the upper clas.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the income and wealth inequality is not a problem for America. I believe in a capitalist nation one must expect there to be a disparity of wealth and if one wanted to change that then they could move to a socialist nation. I believe everyone is given the same opportunities (not the same starting point) it is just a matter of how hard one is willing to work to achieve financial stability. I do not believe government should have any say in peoples economic progress. This might be extreme but I believe in social Darwinism and survival of the fittest.
ReplyDelete