We'll just have to remain in disagreement there. I believe there is plenty of evidence in the world to suggest that the wealthier rich people are in a free society the wealthier the poor are too.
Chris I realise you aren't defending the status quo but the gaps between rich and poor is actually growing in the US and world-wide. Denmark, one of the most heavily taxed countries, rates as one of the happiest. It appears the lower the income gap the greater social cohesion. A fact reflected in the Nordic countries.
“Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. “
More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy.” See here for US census data, and full article. The world-wide gap is described as the eighth wonder of the world by the satirical magazine the Onion.
here.
But are you not assuming that a family with a couple of kids is better off today with both parents working than a family 60 years ago with only one parent working? Both of my grandfathers raised their families with only one income, and neither of the families were left wanting. Today you have families with pretty much the same standard of living that are entirely dependent on two incomes.
As women are almost exclusively the carers, what they do iseffectively unpaid "work". Work that is neccessary for human life. A single earner (usually male) would control the family income, and the carer left at their mercy whilst society only acknowledges outside the home work as actual work. This cannot be a true reflection of human life as it fails to acknowledge the contribution women make to society.
I would also say that child carers are temporarily "disadvantaged" by not being able to work. But there are also very significant advantages to caring for others especially your own children. I would happily sacrifice part of my wages to be able to spend more time at home with my family as I value that part of my life more.
Why should they be disadvantaged at all? Nurturing & caring is essential to society and should be treated as work. All of society needs this work to be done, including markets and businesse's. You giving up part of your work-time would be a voluntary choice, but no choice exists for most women who must care for kids, or carers who care for the disabled or elderly. They forgo income because they have to. Who would choose to live on 200 euro or so a week except that it is neccessary?
Let me clarify. I put the term "self-interest" in quotations and the term is very easily misunderstood in this context. Basically, every human action is performed by the actor to improve their physical or psychological well-being. If I buy a sandwich and eat it I do so because I want the satisfaction of having eaten something. If I volunteer at a charity once a week, I do so for the feeling of satisfaction of having helped someone. In both cases I act with the "self-interest" of satisfying a physical or psychological need, as long as my actions are made out of free choice and not coercion.
Not all human actions are done for self-interest. Addiction is a case in point, where no real "choice" exists. But even voluntary choices are a minefield. To try and differentiate between voluntary choices and brute luck turns society into moral judges who must decide which is which. I "choose" to care for a dying relative, thus society owes me nothing as I exercised choice, I could have chosen differently and wasn't coerced. I chose to drink & drive, and as a result am injured in a crash. Should society not treat me? But maybe I'm alcoholic? Maybe I'm psychologically damaged by child abuse or a war veteran. Deciding between voluntary choices & brute luck is next to impossible. Also there is a basic unfairness if the rich do not have to explain how they got rich, but the poor must explain their poverty to get societies help.
Yes, disability is entirely different matter, and I have no problem with there being help for disabled. But I would rather see private charities doing the helping, as they are far better at making the most out of scarce resources. But as I said, I do not believe that an able bodied poor person needs special consideration and handouts appr9opriated by force.
Disability takes many forms. A person may be bodily healthy but psychologically disabled. Again, society is forced into becoming moral judges. And why should caring be left to charities? Surely society means we owe each other care, respect and nurturing? Or are we saying that only the
economically productive matter to society. What a terrible place that would be. Much of what matters to people isn't economic. Literature, art, love, human development etc aren't economically measurable. And those who make money in society also owe it something. How this is done is debatable, but that they owe society something surely cannot be argued against.
Very true, but the fact that big business uses the power of its money to influence public policy is a problem of our government system. As a classical liberal I would like to see government's only roles being in protecting the country and its citizens from foreign and domestic harm. In such a situation a big business could throw as much money at politicians as it liked, but government would not be able to influence a positive outcome for the business. Hayek once suggested a simple constitutional law that required that every legislation that is passed be applied to all members and organisations of society equally. Financial industry lobbies for a tax break, give everyone the exact same tax break; this avoids favouritism to the loudest and most powerful lobby group.
Tax breaks designed specifically for business's cannot be extended to individuals easily. One of the problems in the US specifically is that corporations have been able to nominate themselves as "persons" whilst not obviously being persons.