~
I don't think we'll ever agree, but I want to point out that I do enjoy the discussion.
Real income equality is a argument that says somehow despite all evidence that there needs to be equality in income(or outcome). When reality has proven multiple times that this leads to rather bad things.
I'll also mention that I agree with this point. Absolute equality of income/outcome is a terrible idea, is grossly unfair, hampers innovation, ennervates drive, subdues talent and, as you point out, history demonstrates this quite clearly. I favour instead (the impossible dream of) equality of
opportunity, where people aren't held back because they happen to be born in a poor country or a poor area of a rich country, and where people born rich aren't propelled into positions of authority simply because of their name. I do think that inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed, wealth inequality more than income inequality because elite income is derived largely from existing wealth. Talented people, hard workers, visionary entrepreneurs deserve to be wealthier, I'm not disputing that, even in some cases
much wealthier... I just think that the excesses should be reined in a bit through more effective progressive taxation, and specifically a wealth tax. You mentioned in a previous post Bill Gates turning his attention, wealth and considerable talents towards the common good - this is laudable, and I'm a big fan. But he's an outlier amongst the ultra rich. In general, deciding whose lives get to be saved shouldn't be the preserve of individual billionaires, but rather of democratically elected governments and international not-for-profit bodies. Let someone have millions of dollars if he's earned it, fine, but maybe when it gets to a hundred billion we should be thinking it's a little obscene.