Should society attempt to equalize income or economic opportunities? Are the issues of eqity and equality in the distribution of income synonymous? To what degree, if any, is income inequality equitible? Solution The answer to this particular question depends on value judgments, however majority of us would favour a combination of the two types of income distribution. In a purely capitalist regime, wherein incomes are determined only by the market mechanism, will imply that those who, for whatever reason, are not able to contribute to production will be compelled to rely completely on private charity for their living. A purely communist regime also causes an intractable issue: If income would be distributed only on the basis of need, why will anyone occupy himself in production? Majority of the modern societies try to obtain a compromise of some kind or another between these two extremes. Conservatives suggest that due to existing trade-off between equality and efficiency, society must content itself by trying to provide equality of opportunity. Liberals debate that income redistribution is important as equality in economic opportunity is not possible in an economy with major differences in income, more so when these differences are due to the inheritance of property. Income equity implies how fairly income is distributed. One may debate that some inequality of income is not only necessary for efficiency concerns but is also fairer than an equal distribution of income, as those who produce more amounts must to be rewarded for their efforts. The point to be noted is that unequal incomes are not always related to differences in individual ability or effort. It is unjust to stand by the inequalities that are obtained from market power and discrimination as being equitable. The fairness of inherited wealth is also in doubt. ..

1. Should society attempt to equalize income or economic opportunities? Are the issues of eqity
and equality in the distribution of income synonymous? To what degree, if any, is income
inequality equitible?
Solution
The answer to this particular question depends on value judgments, however majority of us
would favour a combination of the two types of income distribution. In a purely capitalist
regime, wherein incomes are determined only by the market mechanism, will imply that those
who, for whatever reason, are not able to contribute to production will be compelled to rely
completely on private charity for their living. A purely communist regime also causes an
intractable issue: If income would be distributed only on the basis of need, why will anyone
occupy himself in production? Majority of the modern societies try to obtain a compromise of
some kind or another between these two extremes.
Conservatives suggest that due to existing trade-off between equality and efficiency,
society must content itself by trying to provide equality of opportunity. Liberals debate that
income redistribution is important as equality in economic opportunity is not possible in an
economy with major differences in income, more so when these differences are due to the
inheritance of property.
Income equity implies how fairly income is distributed. One may debate that some
inequality of income is not only necessary for efficiency concerns but is also fairer than an equal
distribution of income, as those who produce more amounts must to be rewarded for their efforts.
The point to be noted is that unequal incomes are not always related to differences in individual
ability or effort. It is unjust to stand by the inequalities that are obtained from market power and
discrimination as being equitable. The fairness of inherited wealth is also in doubt. .