Stephen Monrad

I’m on to point 8 on my August 6th list of potential problems with equal pay for all.

Point 8 questions whether a society with a flat wealth distribution would be bland and boring.

Even though only a few people can be rich, does having wealthy people in a community actually improve the community? Posh neighborhoods with big houses and fancy cars can be nice to walk through even if you can’t afford them.

More importantly, do people with deep pockets support some types of activities that would otherwise not get funded? Wealthy people can back projects they believe in that would never get funding from the government or other financial institutions. They provide seed money for long shot business ideas. They support charitable organizations. Would these things be left undone in a community with a flat income distribution?

My belief is that the wealthy do perform some useful roles in today’s society. I also believe, however, that if important tasks were left undone in a community with a flatter income distribution, steps could always be taken to fix the problem.

If people miss having nice areas to walk, more public parks could be created. If new ideas aren’t being developed, grant programs could be created to support budding inventors. While charitable donations would likely go down, the need for them would also be less if there weren’t so many poor people.

I don’t think that rich people perform any functions that cannot be carried out in another way in a community with a flatter income distribution.