The fallacy that embodies “income inequality.”

The favorite pastime of leftists is virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is a pejorative neologism for the conspicuous expression of moral values. These are empty acts of public commitment to “good causes.” Sadly, the “signaler” is simply showing support for a cause without actually acting to support the cause in question.

While I abhor the practice of virtue signaling, if one is intent on doing this, then they should, at least, “signal” something that is “virtuous.”

The current mantra of leftists is that “income inequality is bad.” The Democrat candidates for the presidency shout their opposition to income inequality to the rooftops. However, I seriously doubt that any of them will donate all of their wealth and adopt the median salary of Americans (and not a penny more).

[Source: This Tweet Perfectly Describes Income Inequality, by Daniel J. Mitchell]

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher and political economist. Importantly, Mill was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of classical liberalism. Here is what Mill thought of income inequality:

• Compassionate people care about poverty.
• Envious people care about inequality.

These ten simple words capture the fallacy of the left’s obsession with income inequality. Being opposed to income inequality does not signal one’s VIRTUE but one’s ENVY!

So let’s take a look at those who “care about poverty.” Who are those people? I am partially reposting something I researched in 2016 (I can’t get the latest report without purchasing it.). But it applies to today, as well.

Democrats think of themselves as “altruists” while they think of Republicans as greedy people who want to “protect the rich.” European socialism is seen by the Democrat Party as evidence that Europeans are “generous.” Republicans who oppose European socialism are “selfish.” So how does leftist “generosity” bear up under scrutiny?

• Americans broke all records in 2015 in terms of generosity.
• Charitable donations hit a record for the second year in a row, at $373.25 billion. The latest I could find was yet another was another record (footnote).
• That new peak in contributions is record-setting whether measured in current or inflation-adjusted dollars.
• The United States has built the most extraordinary collection of charitable, philanthropic, and civic organizations in the world.
• Our nation is the planet’s largest source of humanitarian aid.
• American government programs and private giving constitute one of the greatest efforts to help people in history.

So, are our “virtue signaling” leftists the ones that spearheaded these remarkable statistics? When it comes to giving to charity, Republicans in the United States, on the whole, are more generous than just about any other people on the planet.

• Republican states are more generous than Democratic states by a wide margin.
• In GOP states like Utah and Mississippi, families donate more than seven percent of their income to charity.
• In liberal New England states like Massachusetts, the number is less than half that.
• The same holds for the nation’s 50 biggest metropolitan areas. Residents of Salt Lake City, Memphis, and Birmingham, Ala., typically give at least 7 percent of their discretionary income to charity, while those in Boston and Providence average less than 3 percent.
• Western and southern Republican states show high rates of charitable giving. Liberal New England states? Not so much.

So, how about those European socialists that are so “generous?” Because Republicans give at such a high rate, it boosts America’s generosity compared with other countries. Investor’s Business Daily reports:

In no European economy are the people more generous with their own money than the people of the U.S. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data… the total of Americans’ voluntary social spending reached 10.2% of GDP… The only country that is remotely close in its generosity is the Netherlands, where the total was 6% of the nation’s economy. Only two other nations, Canada and the United Kingdom exceeded 5%.

And how about those evil “1%-ers” that Bernie derides on a daily basis? Very large charitable donations—categorized here as gifts of $100 million or more totaled at least $3.3 billion. “Each year, gifts of $100 million or more play a significant role for some individual donors and many different types of charities, and they do affect the numbers. However, Americans’ collective generosity would still be enormous even without those jaw-dropping gifts,” said Patrick M. Rooney, Ph.D. Interestingly, more Americans give than vote in the U.S…

I, like many Americans, donate to my favorite charities. I get a wonderful feeling when I make the donations, but that does not compare to the feeling I get when I receive a letter from each and every charity thanking me for my generosity. In the letter, they tell me of the good works they are doing or have done over the course of the year. Very often there is a penned note of special thanks to me and my wife (a far more generous person than myself) stating how important our continuing generosity is to their mission.

Every time I read one of those letters I think, where is the letter from Nancy Pelosi or Gavin Newsome thanking me for my contributions to all those persons that my tax dollars help? The letter never arrives because “it is not my money but theirs.” They receive the “thank you” from the citizens receiving the benefits of my labors. They get their votes in the next election. What do I and my wife get? Derision! We have been “luckier” than those receiving the fruits of our efforts. We are no more “deserving,” and, worse still, we do not pay our “fair share.” More will be needed later.

Roy Filly

Footnote: