Income Inequality Is a Product of Moonbattery

Liberals use the term “income inequality” to justify confiscating other people’s money and even to prevent people from generating wealth in the first place through government ownership and excessive regulation. After all, as Barack Obama informed us, “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” However, where their policies are applied, you do not find less income inequality but more of it.

No city could be more conspicuously devoted to the ideology that demonizes income inequality than New York under ultraleft Mayor Bill Blasio — and yet:

A ranking of 2017 income inequality among the 100 most populous U.S. metropolitan areas, as gauged by the Gini coefficient, shows New York taking … the number two spot…

That’s up from #3 last year. Maybe next year it can pass Democrat-dominated Bridgeport, CT to become #1. (The Mayor and every single member of the City Council is a Democrat in Bridgeport; NYC has three Republican councilmembers and 48 Democrats.)

For the cities with the lowest income inequality, turn to right-wing Utah:

Salt Lake City, Provo and Ogden are closest to income equality on the list.

Income inequality is irrelevant. Only those who indulge in the sin of envy are bothered by people having more; the important thing is that you are allowed to create wealth and keep what you have earned. Yet respect for property rights invariably produces less income inequality than socialism.

Consider the vast gap between the people starving in Venezuela and the Bernie Sanders types living it up from atop Big Government (and their relatives, like Hugo Chavez’s multibillionaire daughter).

If liberals were sincere about wanting to reduce income inequality, they would dump coercion and collectivism to embrace freedom and property rights instead — like classical liberals. But their only sincere objective is power.

On a tip from 1-Bodhisattva.

The post Income Inequality Is a Product of Moonbattery appeared first on Moonbattery.