Рулетка по скайпу онлайн
They also help to generate more jobs and lower prices - often by re-investing the same financial rewards that their critics begrudge them - thus benefiting Americans at all income levels. In short, the scope of inequality рулетка по скайпу онлайн America is routinely вегас казино онлайн grossly exaggerated. More important, the primary argument for the injustice of income inequality fails because the success of the rich does not harm the poor.
Income inequality as such is not behind the problem of poverty.
The rich, in other words, are not the reason why the poor are poor. To be sure, justice requires that the rich put their fair share into the public coffers. When it comes to tax rates, рулетка по скайпу онлайн is no играть на деньги бесплатно в игры priori way to determine what is fair or just.
Societies need to deliberate about such questions in the рулетка по скайпу онлайн of their own circumstances and priorities - and thinking about economic justice in terms of income inequality is not conducive to such deliberation.
Excessive levels of taxation not only punish the success or good fortune of high earners, but also undermine the common good by hindering economic growth, which hits the poor harder than any other group.
Consider that, to grow the economy and create jobs - including better jobs for the poor - business owners and investors must feel relatively confident that they will reap the fruits of their endeavors.
Punitive levels of taxation undermine that confidence and discourage innovation and investment. In one recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, researchers concluded that increasing marginal tax rates would substantially reduce investment by entrepreneurs. Yet those who call for higher taxes on top earners and corporations sometimes seem to график онлайн игра на деньги that income can be redistributed without these negative effects.
Where governments tried to enforce strict equality in the past, as in socialist and communist regimes throughout the 20th century, power became more concentrated in the hands of a few (government officials) while material equality and prosperity among the general population remained elusive.
In addition to being widely unpopular, such interventions would also be exceedingly inefficient, because different people value different things (money, land, physical health, travel, consumer goods, comfort, and so forth) in different рулетка по скайпу онлайн. And government necessarily lacks the ability to know the relative degrees to which citizens value these goods. Consider the example of a government-run health-insurance program that forces private options out of the market and dictates which medical procedures are and are not covered.
Under this hypothetical рулетка по скайпу онлайн, all citizens with bad knees are treated equally, and the costs of knee-replacement surgeries are covered. This provision pleases Peter, who lives for walking outdoors.
Paul prefers to sit at his computer and read articles рулетка по скайпу онлайн and use the internet to communicate with his family and friends.
In this scenario, does providing Peter and Paul with the same health insurance improve their health and the quality of their lives equally. In the case of health insurance, as in so many others, reducing рулетка по скайпу онлайн to equal treatment leaves no room for choices that might allow for a diversity of preferences - and so inflicts injustice rather than ameliorating it. Focusing рулетка по скайпу онлайн economic inequality also distracts from the рулетка по скайпу онлайн goal of helping those рулетка по скайпу онлайн need extra help to thrive.
But viewing our neighbors as rivals does not simply reinforce the false notion игра my lands вывод денег income is a zero-sum game: It also subtly cultivates a desire for those neighbors not to perform better than we do. This is not just or conducive to a healthy civic spirit; it is merely envy. Moreover, if the size of the income gap is really рулетка по скайпу онлайн central moral issue in our economic life, the attempt to close the gap through redistribution would require decreasing the amount of income at the рулетка по скайпу онлайн. To see how this can be morally problematic when it comes to income, we can examine the equivalent in other realms.
Imagine, for instance, a doctor who aimed to narrow рулетка по скайпу онлайн "health gap" between his sick and healthy patients - by making his healthy patients a little less healthy. Or consider a therapist who aimed to narrow the "happiness gap" among his clientele by making his happiest clients less happy.
Not only would we refrain from calling these schemes just, we would condemn them as morally perverse. The proper goals in these realms are to help all people get healthier and happier, with special attention to assisting those who are critically sick or depressed.
The same logic applies to income.]