We need to look at increasing inequality as an unfair tax on social and economic stability. And so, my brief thoughts on this Tim Cestnick article in the Globe & Mail;
At a very simple level the economy spends what it earns (Output=expenditure=C+I=C+S, where S is income spent but not consumed). In reality the picture is somewhat different in that we have monetary loan expansion that over time has served to increase the demand/expenditure for goods/services and investment expenditure.
Economic growth is the growth of expenditure whether it be consumption or investment goods. If we start to allocate increasing amounts of income towards a very small % of the population what we end up doing is to constrain the ability of the economy to grow.
For one lower income growth limits borrowing ability (something which had sustained GDP growth) and it may retroactively impact the ability to repay previous loans based on lower ex post income growth.
Greater allocation of income to one small segment of society also risks a higher allocation of money towards assets and away from consumption. Increasing income inequality results in lower recycling of income into demand, and as the growth rate of demand slows so does the growth rate of investment.
Importantly future flows determine the valuation of assets, so rising inequality amidst weaker GDP growth poses risks to assets prices. The significance of this circularity has been lost on the very wealthy in a time when monetary policy has been outwardly in favour of asset price support in a weakening growth environment.
If we had less income inequality then tax rates would also likely be lower and we may also have a smaller state and a more outwardly capitalist economy. The need for higher tax rates is partly due to structural imbalances like income inequality: think of two monkeys swinging through the trees, one with all its limbs and the other with only one arm.
Clearly we need incentives for people to take risks with capital, but we also need to make sure that the system has the necessary circularity of flow. The income of the very wealthy is dependent on the expenditure of all and the valuation of their assets too. This is something many have lost sight of: today’s high market valuations relative to historical benchmarks (note the Shiller CAPE) are assumed by some to reflect a different set of dynamics supporting valuation whereas many of the growth engines of the past are collapsing.
At a time when there are so many negative forces impacting the stability of the economy a more efficient, though still incentivised, distribution of income would go a long way to alleviating economic and geo-politic stress. Otherwise we risk increasing social instability and greater threat to income and wealth.
The post World War II years are a very short space in time and certainly not long enough to assume that the having your cake and eat it too mentality is a natural economic dynamic. In reality increasing income inequality is a de facto tax on economic and social stability in that shifting income and wealth from one set of people to another creates dangerous imbalances and inefficiencies. The present need to raise taxes is an ex post not an ex ante action.