_British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy by country, educational performance, trust among strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality. Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, they found social/health problems lower in countries like Japan and Finland and states like Utah and New Hampshire with high levels of equality, than in countries (US and UK) and states (Mississippi and New York) with large differences in household income_
> I also don't think reducing wealth inequality is a foregone goal that takes priority over other criteria.
See above "bad stuff".
> A progressive income tax also reduces the incentive to create economic value. And most of the time, the increased tax revenue is not managed efficiently - for example, California doesn't have "better communities" or improved services for all the tax it collects.
There's maybe 15 socialist democracies with a higher HDI than the USA, with higher taxation (and more progressive taxation). People still work through higher brackets, buy expensive things etc.
Thanks for sharing. However, the paper the Wikipedia article is quoting is not publicly available, and therefore I can't verify how they establish causality between inequality and those outcomes. Furthermore, even if there were a causal relationship, that doesn't mean the US is doing anything worse than these other countries. For example, countries like Japan or Finland may have different health outcomes that could wholly be due to genetic traits, eating habits, lifestyle choices, and other cultural elements. A statistical test wouldn't be able to easily introduce a qualitative variable like culture into the study, to separate the effect of such a variable relative to another input variable like income distribution.
But the point I was originally making regarding communities is slightly different. Even if there is variance in income locally, I feel like I belong to a community and city. Most people around me would likely say the same thing. It doesn't make me feel like a "community" is being "torn apart" due to variance on income or wealth. The definition of "community" or what it takes to say that it is being "torn apart" is going to be inherently subjective and personal, and so such a broad claim doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Lastly, I think every choice has a tradeoff. It is worth noting that America has produced the bulk of innovations in the last 100 years, both from the work of public agencies and impactful private organizations. Other countries simply have not produced the same output in recent times. It is easy to claim that some other locale has a higher HDI but those same places are benefiting from the output of the American system as it exists today, with the very same tax structures that Gates is criticizing. For example: Washington State, which is specifically called out by Gates, has produced Microsoft, Amazon, Cray (supercomputers), Starbucks, Real Networks, Redfin, Tableau, Costco, Nordstrom, REI, Valve, Bungie, Expedia, Paccar, Boeing, and numerous other globally impactful companies that I have left out. It certainly seems like the impact and benefit on quality of life is there, and it is cultivated by an environment that has the right traits on multiple dimensions. Those socialist democracies you are referencing are not anywhere near in terms of their value add to humanity as a whole, and I think if they were isolated (not benefiting from global export of American outputs) they would definitely not have the same degree of development.
A decent enough summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality
_British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy by country, educational performance, trust among strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality. Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, they found social/health problems lower in countries like Japan and Finland and states like Utah and New Hampshire with high levels of equality, than in countries (US and UK) and states (Mississippi and New York) with large differences in household income_
> I also don't think reducing wealth inequality is a foregone goal that takes priority over other criteria.
See above "bad stuff".
> A progressive income tax also reduces the incentive to create economic value. And most of the time, the increased tax revenue is not managed efficiently - for example, California doesn't have "better communities" or improved services for all the tax it collects.
There's maybe 15 socialist democracies with a higher HDI than the USA, with higher taxation (and more progressive taxation). People still work through higher brackets, buy expensive things etc.