[lmm]

> OK - would you agree that this presents us with an ethical problem?

My instinct is that inequality is not inherently unethical if it's a fair reflection of people's skills and/or efforts. If people are so poor that their needs are going unmet that's an ethical problem, but those people are not made any worse off by the existence of wealthy people.

> How about a societal/practical problem? Is an unequal society sustainable?

An unequal society where people still feel like they're contributing something seems to be sustainable. I think we're hitting an issue where it becomes clear that some people have essentially no ability to contribute to society, and that might be unsustainable, but I don't think we can or should turn back the technological clock to make them able to contribute. At which point we're down to handouts or make-work jobs, and while I'm all for supporting the worst off, that doesn't address the fundamental problem.

[pbhjpbhj]

>those people are not made any worse off by the existence of wealthy people. //

How does that work? If there are wealthy people using more than their share of resources and energy, staying wealthy on the back of other's labour (rent-seeking, capitalism), then surely the presence of those wealthy people makes resources/energy more scarce and the need to pay the excess in order to maintain the wealthy means all goods/services/resources are more costly.

If one person owns the farmland and charges rent without giving back value then all the workers must work harder than if the farm is owned cooperatively.

[lmm]

Most of the cost of most things - especially most things consumed by wealthy people - rests much more in labour than in physical resources; poor people are net sellers of labour so wealthy people inflating the price of labour helps them more than it hurts them. Land is an exception (being in limited supply) and I do think a land value (Georgist) tax would be morally desirable, with the proceeds distributed equally to everyone.