Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Yeah... one telling piece of information is found in the research
People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
These are percenteges of income as well. |
That's the exact quote?
That's a pretty ... specific viewpoint. I mean, a responsibility to keep the GINI coefficient down?
|
Specific how so? I actually agree with it because of how unspecific it is. I think it's the governments responsibility to reduce income inequality if it's shown that income inequality is caused by unfair means. For example due to breaches in civil rights, racism, sexism etc.
But yeah I beleieve that's the direct quote.
|
Well ... but I don't think that's the question. What is being asked is not whether the government may/should take more taxes from those more able to pay more, or fight injustice in the workplace/wages, or confiscate ill-gotten gains, etc.; but whether government should work to the end that people do not have as much disparity in income. Not as a side effect: as a goal. Not in certain cases of injustice: as a rule.
I mean, I guess you could say that "inequality" could be referring to a sexist pay scale or the like, but you can't say that the word does double duty in the same phrase to speak of people just making different amounts in general. It's two different definitions. So unless you're saying that people against discrimination shun charities... I guess you'd know what the topic of the survey was, which way people would be interpreting "inequality" when they heard that question, but I seriously doubt you can have it both ways.
The question reminds me very much of the one Mafoo says he polled people on.
|
Either way, a lot more people agree with it then you likely believe.
When asked that 33% of people say it is the governments duty to do so. 43% disagree. If your right and it is "as a rule". Mafoo likely has a point for leaving. 33% is scary high if taken as just in general even if people earn it and we don't need the extra money.
Either way....
There is also a huge gap when controlled for everything else when asked
“the government has a basic responsibility to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves."
75% of people agree with that.
The 25% who disagree with that give away far more to charities, both secular and nonsecular.
The implicatons seem clear... and really only make sense so long as you accept the position that "nobody wants people to die out in the street."
