I didn’t say there was anything wrong with some income or wealth disparity. But there are extremes of disparity that start to look very wrong. At some level it does become unnaturally unequal. When combined with other factors, inequality is something that should be considered.
Like you said before “If there was hard data backing up” that premise.
The proposals of progressive taxation do not eliminate the free market. We can still have a free market. I don’t recall anyone here suggesting that we eliminate it.
As promised, I will answer your question. And I answer it in the affirmative - provided the hard data shows life would be better for those at the bottom if taxes on the rich are lowered.
Usually when I’ve heard a fairness argument, it’s about unfair profits rather than unfairness in the distribution itself. Especially at the lower end, the employee receives no benefits from the employer’s success. The creation of a large number of part-time, low-paying jobs is of dubious value to the economy. I think that frustrates many people - in a lot of lower paying jobs I’ve dealt with, the company’s success resulted in no significant increase in my compensation or upward mobility, or really anything other than a surplus of 30-hour a week, $9/hr positions that somehow never translate into higher pay no matter how many are open.
After establishing that “the common good” is a responsibility of government, the Catechism goes on to say in paragraph 1908:
Note that this is a governmental responsibility, not just an individual duty to charity.
There is clearly some limit to how unequally the fruits of God’s gift of creation are distributed. It is a shameful comment on our society if we cannot manage some degree of fairness and justice in sharing the gifts that no one truly deserves by his own merit.
We have a poster who consistently brings up covetousness. Yet when asked to give an example of someone coveting he has never been able to give even one example. It just shows the weakness of his argument that he cannot argue about the issues on the table but has to make up stuff to distract the argument.
I know what covetousness means. It is just not related to this thread.
If it got to that position by the free association of individuals, then placing an arbitrary limit on inequality is only limiting people’s freedoms.
It doesn’t look like you took to heart anything that I quoted from the Catechism, but just focused on this one statement of mine. Please address the whole post where I supported by position by those citations.LeafByNiggle:
If it got to that position by the free association of individuals, then placing an arbitrary limit on inequality is only limiting people’s freedoms.
It is a different matter if the wealth distribution occurred through skulduggery.
It is not jealously. It is the desire for justice. Please consult the Catechism and see if you can justify that statement of yours. Here is what the Catechism says about capitalism and socialism in paragraph 2425:
So the Catechism says that the practice of capitalism can be unfair, contrary to your assertion.
Who has said that there should be an equal distribution of wealth? Nobody has said there should be an equal distribution of wealth. Might I suggest you stick with what people are actually saying rather than making things up?
That’s a reasonable societal goal, I’m not saying that everyone from the top to the bottom couldn’t see a reason to get behind it, but it isn’t a matter of moral necessity. Neither laws trying to achieve that end nor laws that fail to support that end would be inherently unjust.