5 Dec 2022 6:31 pm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ps ... al-utilityVegas » 05 Dec 2022, 4:03 pm » wrote: ↑ Government policies, that focus on the general welfare of the populous, tend to be one-sided by nature. I don't think it's intentional, it's just inherently favorable to one group on the expense of another. Therefore, the division will always be sharp, by default. For instance, welfare is favorable to the poor, but it must be established and operational by taking money from the middle-class and rich. This ends in resentment. This is more applicable today than in the past. Things are far more expensive for the middle class, it's rare to see a one-income home anymore. The middle class need their money to make ends meet just like the poor do. However, the poor gets to claim other people's money without mutual benefit. This is just one example, there are others.
According to science, the utility (money can be an example) is of more value at the lower end of the spectrum than the higher end of the spectrum. Take a welfare recipient from your example and let's say a middle class household. If you are on welfare, a dollar can mean a lot more than a dollar for someone with a modest income that can afford more amenities. Therefore, redistributing income has a scientific basis for adding utility (money) to the poor than to the middle class. Of course, the theory can be taken to the extremes of Communism that don't work in practice given their colossal failures. However, that shouldn't preclude that perhaps fairer distributions have no merit. It's backed by science even if economics usually does just shuffle the deck so I agree with you on that point.
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.