Quote from darkhorse:
imho this view is myopic and glosses over real dangers. Many individuals who are financially successful, politically independent and libertarian in their leanings are nonetheless concerned about income inequality gaps and rightfully so.
You have some good points that I would agree with, although bashing the Tea Party at the end takes away some of your credibility. But you're still missing big pieces of the puzzle in regards to income inequality.
For too long, income inequality has been used by the far left to push for more generous welfare programs, but the argument that the poor are remaining poor while the rich are getting richer is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that looking at income changes by grouping the country into income percentiles, ie: the richest 10% and the poorest 10% ignores the fact that people are constantly transitioning from one income group to another.
It doesn't matter if everyone in this country starts out at minimum wage, IF there is the potential for them to become wealthy through hard work and perseverance in a reasonable amount of time. Income inequality metrics do not capture this, but income mobility metrics do. To make this abundantly clear, take a look at the income mobility graph below covering a 10-year span from 1996-2005. Instead of lumping people into income groups and assuming they do not better/worsen themselves over time, income mobility tracks the changes in income of individuals over time. This graph clearly illustrates the facade that liberals have set up to pander to the wealth distribution crowd. The notion that the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to stay poor is a myth and a lie that is perpetrated by those with socialist intents. The truth is completely opposite as the graph below demonstrates:
From 1995 to 2006, the poorest who were in the lowest quintile (lowest %20 of incomes) had their incomes grow 90.5% over that time span. Those in the 20%-40% quintile had their incomes grow 35%. The richest, however, in the top 20% of incomes, only had their income grow 10% over this time period. The richest 5% actually had their incomes decline -7% over this period, and the big kicker - the richest 1% had their incomes fall a whopping -26%.
Below is another way of showing income mobility. This chart demonstrates it not by raw percent incomes but by the percent of people moving from one income group to another over time. Again, the result is the same and the conclusion is inescapable. Those advocating for wealth redistribution are wrong. These graphs suggest that if anything, our hugely progressive tax system is unfairly punishing those in the top income brackets, making wealth accumulation more and more difficult the wealthier the person becomes.
