Inequality is a stupid measure. What matters is absolute poverty. If I have a comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million times more money than me?
The fact is, there are as many viewpoints as there are billionaires, and that's what keeps them from forming a cabal. If you want to find someone who can form a cabal to bend the system for private profit, look for a corn farmer.
At least many gas stations are starting to offer completely ethanol free gas now, although at a premium.
The point is, policy isn't corrupted by billionaires, it's corrupted by large, politically powerful blocs, which may or may not have individual rich people in charge. It helps if the blocs are geographically concentrated, because the political system works state-by-state.
Hamilton is rolling in his grave...
TED talk about it: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
I'm sure you could find studies that disagree with this.
Furthermore, I don't see how fixing the income inequality fixes the root problem there.
It doesn't, but it might make the lives of millions of people better in the medium term, and possibly result in knock on legislative changes that give more power to working people: repeal of anti-labour laws and so on. Which makes further real change to the system more likely and possible.
You will find many far left wing types have little interest in proposals to fiddle with the tax system, for the reasons you describe: it doesn't fix the real problem. And in a funny way it may well be against the interests of the proletariat: it prolongs the slow death of the current system. That doesn't mean the far left doesn't talk about income inequality of course, but they do so with a different aim: to increase awareness among the working class of their exploitation, with eventual revolutionary goals.
People have been debating the relative merits of gradual reform/revolutionary change for a long time now…
Because people by their nature are jealous. Many people even hate when their friends do better than them for some reason.
There's some wealth that's genuinely locked up, sitting in items that provide no utility for example. Say fine art locked in someone's vault or basement. But it's not all that much as a percentage.
Where the bigger problem in recent years has been is all the wealth tied up in what is essentially sophisticated gambling mechanisms in the financial markets. Money tied up in ways that aren't providing any true value to the economy (mumbo jumbo justifications aside). I'd be all for rules that stopped that sort of thing with funds subject to public bailouts. Your own money, your own risk, fine go ahead. Your money but risk assumed by the government? No. No thanks.
It is, but only in the most limited fashion. Money sitting in bank accounts is doing very little to improve unemployment. Buying physical goods would be much better for that.
> One of the worst economic problems of recent years has actually been the lack of money just sitting in reserve to give the banks stability.
In a way, that's true although I wouldn't frame it that way. The banks could make loans and then sell those loans as investments -- they didn't need any money on hand for that. Increasing deposits, for example, wouldn't change anything.
There's a strong correlation that indicates that poorer health outcomes, higher crime, poorer standard of living all go hand in hand with greater income inequality.
Again, you may not care, for your own sake, but the country is a fair bit larger than you, and this problem does affect us all, whether we care or not.
Income equality is not about solving all problems. It's just trying to rectify one of the most egregious ones.
$32k would still not be a comfortable standard whether Bill Gates had earnt $1million or $1billion.