Inequality In Henry George's The Crime Of Poverty

19th Century American economist Henry George in his address entitled The Crime of Poverty said, “No person, I think, ever saw a herd of buffalo, of which a few were fat and the great majority lean. No person ever saw a flock of birds, of which two or three were swimming in grease, and the others all skin and bone” (H. George-1885). In a developed world where scientific advances have been made, resources are plentiful, and varied democratic constitutions have been implemented to instill freedoms and fruition for all. It is appalling that 130 years later there are still such vast disparities in some developed nations due to the wealth distribution amongst its populations. There is no denying an equality-based society such as communism ultimately

A certain amount of inequality will always be required to provide incentive for innovation, dedication and hard work. However, as former U.S Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich summarizes, when income inequalities reach extreme levels it perpetuates a negative cycle that leads to civil unrest and the downfall of several institutions including the unsustainable growth of an economy (J.Korbluth-2013). History has shown when wealth becomes distributed to fewer and fewer hands, so will power and who benefits from policies that are made by government. What is forgotten in this theory is the interdependency that is needed of a population that allows for a stable and growing economy. When incomes cannot keep up with the cost of living it either creates massive debt bubbles or negates a population’s ability to consume within the economy. Inevitably, this leads to less tax dollars being generated for governments to provide critical social services that are detrimental to a nation’s future well being. Ultimately, income inequality in developed nations leads to the corruption of democratic politics, the weakening of the economy, and the undermining of social

Government elections that are financed on private and independent groups clearly place objectivity and the concerns of all citizens at a disadvantage. In 2010, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Committee allowing unlimited spending for independent groups in federal elections. This led to over 1 billion dollars in contributions spent by wealthy interest groups in presidential and congressional elections in 2012. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi criticized the rulings saying, “I'm concerned about what it means for our democracy. Our founders, they sacrificed their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor for a democracy: a government of the many, not a government of the money” (L.Hurley-2014). Even prior to these rulings, the “trickle down” economic theory made famous by President Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich in the 1980s was just another example of the wealth’s exploitation of democracy. The theory that if the investors and job creators are prosperous, then the profits would trickle down to the rest of the population was a perfectly executed manipulation of policy to increase inequality. Saez and Piketty note, that as result of President Reagan and Prime minister Thatcher’s tax cuts in the 1980s, the U.S and U.K saw the top income tax rates slashed from 70% to less than 30% (E.Saez and