Equality

Income and Resources

Discussions of equality are usually couched in terms of income and resources. Income equalization seems to be simplest because it equalizes a type of easily measurable outcome. There are, however, many problems with this form of equalization. If someone decides to work more, and another person decides to have more leisure, why should incomes between the two be equal, and assuming that both prefer more income to less, thereby make the second person better off in terms of welfare? Yet another issue arises if some people incur greater sacrifices to receive something like more education or to save more. Should not that person be rewarded with a higher income? Moreover, if one person has a health problem that requires higher medical expenses, should not that person be given more income to deal with a problem that he or she did not bring upon him-or herself? Difficulties arise when people choose to smoke or engage in physically dangerous sporting activities. Overeating and drinking can also bring about health problems, and one can debate endlessly about whether one is choosing to become ill or not. Notice that even if one argues that choice may have some role to play, there may be other reasons, such as compassion for others, or considerations related to infection and contagion and other externalities (such as those related to driving accidents, or effects on the families of the person with poor health) that could still call for equalization to some degree.

If a person happens to live in an area where there is greater availability of public goods like education and health care, should that person receive the same income as a person who lives in areas less well served—not because of the choices, but because they happened to be born there and are unable to move? Finally, equalization may result in the removal of incentives, for instance, by rewarding those who work less and save less, which will in turn reduce welfare in some other sense of those who work hard and save more.

...