Richard Posner argues that income inequality is a likely byproduct of a competitive and meritocratic society because of a more basic inequality among people “that is due to differences in IQ, energy, health, social skills, character, ambition, physical attractiveness, talent, and luck”. Yet government programs that seek to limit this inequality often have the effect of reducing total wealth by discouraging work. Posner then weighs the social advantages of greater total wealth against greater income equality. The major assumption at work here is that if wealth distribution is justified, then it is justified because it has a social advantage. Posner seems to associate “social advantage” with “political stability” and lack of “envy or social unrest”.

I think, though, that it’s far more promising to justify wealth distribution along moral lines. (The Torah is pretty clear that tzedakah is a moral, not merely a socio-political, issue but that’s a topic for another post.) Supporting those less fortunate either because of illness, old age, disability, lack of education, or simply bad luck is a virtue regardless of its effect on society. Individuals who give freely of themselves to help others are themselves better for it. The same should be true for governments that protect the most vulnerable members of society - the poor.

I don’t mean to suggest that wealth distribution necessarily trumps other economic considerations. I don’t think it does. But its positive moral effect must be considered when weighing it against more libertarian models.