Income Inequality as a Moral Issue - Essay Example

? Income Inequality Table of Contents Income Inequality as a Moral Issue 3 Works Cited 6 Income Inequality as a Moral Issue This paper explains why inequality in income is a problem in the moral sphere. It takes off from Krugman's argument for why this is so. In the main, Paul Krugman thinks that income inequality is a moral issue because income inequality, from the experience o the United States, has moral consequences. By moral consequences is meant that income inequality has caused severe and substantial, demonstrated harms to society, and as such, falls into the sphere of right and wrong. 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 address 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 disastrous 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. Krugman summarizes this state of affairs and its logical conclusion succinctly and well (Krugman 586-592): Middle-class Americans have been caught up in a rat race, not because they're greedy or foolish but because they're trying to give their children a chance in an increasingly unequal society. And they're right to be worried: A bad start can ruin a child's chances in life (Krugman 590). Elsewhere Krugman points to the other serious harms of income inequality/social inequality, and that is that it breeds conditions for unequal access to opportunities. Krugman proves this by referring to data on the low ranking of the US in terms of social mobility scores in comparison to countries in Scandinavia, Canada, France and the UK. Krugman takes his time to develop this piece of evidence, but he ultimately ties this lower social mobility score of the Americans to inequality in access to opportunities, which is in turn the direct result of social inequality. Apart from this, as already discussed earlier, social inequality corrupts the political system, by giving power to the moneyed interests to exert influence on the legislative process through the lobbies and the contributions that such moneyed interests make to the campaign kitties of the legislators when they run for office (Krugman 586-594). The broader piece of evidence and partly an argument that Krugman makes for the negative consequences of income inequality and social inequality is with regard to the erosion of that atmosphere of trust that is the foundation of society. The damage is to the social bonds that keep American society bound together. Trust is the thing that goes away, where a society is torn between two groups, one having, and the other not having in terms of income and a share of the wealth of the society (Krugman 594): And there's convincing evidence that growing inequality is behind our growing cynicism, which is making the United States seem increasingly like a Latin American country...In a world of haves and have-nots, those at either end of the economic spectrum have little reason to believe that 'most people can be trusted'...social trust rests on a foundation of economic equality (Krugman 594). Works Cited Frank, Robert H. “Income Inequality: Too Big To Ignore”. Krugman, Paul. “Confronting Inequality”. Read More