Income inequality

Inequality. What does it mean to you? For many, this evokes images of discrimination, bias, and injustice. Indeed, our very Declaration of Independence boldly proclaims that “…all men are created equal” and thus, in American society, inequality has come to acquire a very negative connotation, and is something we are taught to shun and instinctively despise.  However, I submit to you that some forms of inequality are highly desirable. After all, were there no inequality, there would be no opportunity for distinction, and no point in aspiring to great things. The form of inequality perhaps the most talked about in recent years, especially in the political sphere is “income inequality”. By using “inequality” to describe the wealth difference between the richer and less affluent elements of America, a negative light is immediately cast upon this perceived disparity without a real reason given. However, the connotation most would attach to this is completely unwarranted, and demonstrates the importance of critical thinking.  To fail to examine issues closely, and simply parrot or accept widely-held beliefs, or vote emotionally, is to allow oneself to be played by skillful politicians and to become part of the masses, instead of asserting one’s individuality.

The fact that America possesses individuals with incredible wealth should be hailed as vindication of the free market, because it demonstrates that there is still opportunity, and that there are no limits to what one can achieve except those that are self-imposed. Indeed, in a perfectly merit-based society, only exceptional individuals amass exceptional wealth. As the old saying goes, “If it were easy, everybody would be doing it.” Those who pit what they deem the “lower classes” against the so-called 1% propagate the dangerous myth that wealth is a zero-sum game, and somehow, those who have attained it have done so at the expense of the rest of society.  This is not only false, but fundamentally un-American. The wealthy are those who saw and capitalized on opportunity before others, men like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg. They create jobs, and add to the gross GDP of this country. In fact, the poorest elements of American society would be much worse off, were it not for them, and most have cell-phones and many other modern conveniences in addition to their own basic necessities.

If a policy of redistribution is aggressively pursued, this would place barriers on achievement for individual Americans, and remove the motivation and ambition that drives innovation. The government is never a solution for this perceived problem. Indeed, the only people who can be said to have attained their wealth at the expense of others are those who have used the government and regulations to gain wealth. “Experts” or politicians are much less capable of handling wealth than those who have actually earned it, and it morally wrong that they would be debating the allocation of said wealth, as if it were theirs to spend. Contrary to leftist thinking, corporations and businesses do create jobs and raise the standard of living for everyone in the nation, and to penalize success is to threaten individual liberty, and create a culture of conformity.