“[It’s] not that I don’t care about the gap [between high and low incomes], so much as I don’t care if there are people who earn a lot of money. They’re not my concern. I do care about people who are without opportunity, disadvantaged and poor.”
Now in fact this level is irrelevant if we’re speaking about decreasing poverty by taxing the wealthy. The wealthy are an excellent supply of cash, as a result of they won’t miss it very a lot. The significance comes if we examine two societies. One has no poverty, however a big variety of very wealthy individuals. The different has no wealthy individuals, however nonetheless has poverty. Miles’s argument is that we should always choose the society with no poverty to the one with no super-rich. In a static sense I feel that’s proper, however I’ve dynamic considerations that I’ll now come to.
Right firstly of Miles’s dialogue is an fascinating paragraph:
“Before going on, let me concede first of all that the amount of wealth held by the ultra-rich is truly astonishing, and that making sure that the ultra-rich do not convert their wealth into total control of our political system is important. Documenting and studying in detail all of the ways in which the ultra-rich influence politics is crucial. But short of the ultra-rich subverting our political system, the focus of our concern about inequality should be how well we take care of the poor; whether money needed to help the poor comes from middle-income families or the rich is an important issue, but still of secondary importance to how well we take care of the poor.”
I need to discover some extent that Miles doesn’t pursue. If cash issues so little to the very wealthy, why would they need to grow to be ultra-rich to an astonishing diploma, and go on to attempt to management the political system to make sure they get much more? The reply comes from precisely the identical logic as Miles makes use of. If £1000 means nothing to you since you are very wealthy, if alternatives come up you set effort into making that £1000 into £10,000 or £100,000. The undeniable fact that the ultra-rich have wealth that’s really astonishing will not be an accident, however could also be a results of precisely the identical precept that Miles explores: diminishing marginal utility. The wealthy are not any totally different from everybody else in wanting extra utility, apart from them it requires big quantities of cash to get it. 
So it appears to me that I might take the identical primary precept that Miles explores and write a really totally different conclusion. Once we permit these on the prime the chance to earn very excessive incomes, and the one method these people can see to get further utility is to embark on lease looking for, we will on the very least divert their effort from socially enhancing actions (i.e enhancing the corporate). When these efforts prolong to influencing the political system, we’re in deep trouble. These actions might culminate in taking up the political system, which in any case is what has occurred within the US, with probably disastrous penalties. For that cause alone, inequality issues in addition to poverty.
 Of course standing linked to aggressive consumption can also be essential.
SOURCE: primarily macro – Read whole story here.