[brut]

You are distorting the argument as well.

The correlation between money earned for work and the relative value of that work is rather low. There is no "group, who by and large, has contributed more to the society". There is only "society", nothing exists in a vacuum.

Do you think Steve Jobs could have achieved what he did had there not been any firefighters, primary school teachers, steelworkers, lumberjacks, bus drivers, janitors, soldiers, etc to indirectly or directly support his liberty to achieve his dreams? Do you think factory workers in China have had any impact on Jobs' success? All of them earn less than he did. Are they somehow lazy and deserving of their situation?

The reduction of income/power inequality isn't a bad thing that the poor, lazy masses want in order to get rich doing nothing. Quite the contrary. The point is to raise the standard of living of people doing jobs that, if some part of society had their say, would probably not even be paid. Reducing the wealth gap doesn't mean you can't be successful anymore.

[aje403]

What specifically are you suggesting happen? Did I say anywhere in my post that tax rates should not be raised for the wealthy, or that the estate tax should not be raised?

I am making a specific counterargument to a post arguing that wealth correlates with power, power is the true measure of inequality, and that it should thus be normalized instead.

I am thoroughly questioning the reading comprehension skills of virtually everybody responding to me.