[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The world has never experienced a society where wealth inequality was allowed to increase without limitation or responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think that wealth inequality would increase in an ACist America? While government can decrease inequality, is it a realistic goal? And even if it is a realistic goal, how much wealth will we have to destroy to get there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would inequality increase? I can't say for sure, but I would guess yes. The elimination of progressive taxation and estate taxation would make it easier to amass great wealth, and low-income individuals would (I think?) experience regressive pseudo-taxes for things like roads, police protection, etc. OTOH, some people have suggested that megacorporations and the financial industry would shrink, so maybe some of the paths to great wealth would also be eliminated. Who knows?

Is less inequality realistic, almost certainly. Most European countries have lower measures of inequality, and our taxation system could be (and has been) much more progressive.

Is it worth it is the big question. Personally, I oppose reduction of inequality per se as a government goal. But the point of my post wasn't to argue that redistribution is good or necessary, but that one precondition for a stable society is the possibility of government redistribution. One result from psychology is that people generally feel better about things they feel they can control. Perhaps the illusion of control provided by the democratic process makes people more willing to abide great wealth disparity (or jobs being sent to India, or the high price of gas).