Income inequality is an issue that has been around for a long time coming.  It has been increasing for more than four decades and is continuing. Economists and American citizens have questioned what approach will effectively solve the issue, or at least improve it.  The typical fix would be to simply raise pay, or supply for the poor and reduce pay for the more affluent, also known as equalizing income distribution.  Given that income inequality is an issue Americans still face today, it is questionable whether there is truly a solution to reducing the income gap.  Many have settled for the idea of socialism, a practice involving the redistribution of wealth of those in the working class in order to benefit society; a more brutal term is "legalized theft" (Thompson).  In contrast, there are those who favor the idea of capitalism, a practice which encourages people to act as a community in a free market with less regard to social class distinctions.  In order to begin improving income inequality, the most effective and reasonable route to take would be to implement the power of a community, to practice a free market and disregard socialistic views.

Some recent writers have proposed different approaches to the issue of income inequality favoring the ideas of capitalism.  C. Bradley Thompson, a professor for Political Science at Ashland University unfolds what the two practices mean in America today.  According to his article "Socialism vs. Capitalism: Which is the Moral System" capitalism is the only just and moral social system because it requires people to deal with one another as traders on the basis of mutual consent.  Value of the exchanged item is determined by a free and voluntary judgment of the consumer.  It rewards merit, ability and achievement regardless of birth or class distinctions.  Whereas socialism, as described by Thompson, is a social system which uses "organized violence of the State to take wealth from the producer class for its redistribution to the parasitical class" (Thompson).  Government intervenes through taxation and regulation.  Decisions are made for people, rather than by people.  The main difference between capitalism and socialism can be seen in the incentives of the people.  Under socialist practices, the incentive is to work less because any loss is shared.  Rewards are shared and are minimal to the hard-working individuals.  Under capitalist practices, however, the incentive is to work harder because the producers are likely to deservingly benefit from the values of their production.  Thompson's justifications on which is the moral social system effectively relate back to income inequality.  In order to save money and ultimately improve income inequality, people should take advantage of the opportunity to act independently rather than willfully depend on the government to provide wealth.

A web definition demonstrates other terms for income inequality such as the gap between the rich and the poor, wealth disparity, wealth and income differences, or wealth gap.  In order to effectively approach the issue, wealth should not be the focus.  Wealth is measured by money, but money is not the substance.  According to 19th century British philosopher and social economist John Stuart Mill, wealth is "all useful or agreeable things, which possess exchangeable value."  Redistribution of money by the government will not be effective in the long-run.  Instead, smaller steps should be taken that will result in a long-term effect.  That is, there is power in the people to work in a free market.

Maura Pennington, a contributor for Forbes, discusses an approach to income inequality that leans away from wealth as the focus for solution.  In her article "To Fix Income Inequality, The Have-Nots Must Become The Do-Somethings" Pennington uses poverty and social dysfunction as terms to replace "wealth inequality".  She writes that people having wealth should not have a negative connotation.  Rather than focusing on taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the poor should take action. In Pennington's words, "to improve the situation, the have-nots must become the do-somethings".  Socialism is not a system Americans should practice if they intend on correcting the economic issue.  Instead, practicing capitalism will instill prosperity.  The creative power of a free market creates potential to prevent Americans from being miserable, poor, and sick.  Rather than desecrating the more affluent and not giving the disadvantaged a chance to "buy, sell, work, and live how they would see fit" (Pennington), power of the state should be more centralized which would allow people to implement their own voice and act as a community.  In doing so, people must be confident that they can make an impact instead of depending on the government to provide for them.  Rather than relying on an inefficient economic system in which the state determines what fair compensation for labor is, and as long as people are given a chance for creativity, then the quality of life will potentially improve, thus recovering income inequality and poverty rates.

Furthermore, the root cause of income inequality is explored by David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times who approaches the issue from a different point of view, similar to that of Maura Pennington.  Brooks claims that the problem of income inequality is misconceived.  Growing affluence of the rich is not leading to immobility of the poor, which are are two unrelated issues.  Rather than income inequality being a result of the rich causing immobility for the poor, it is more a result of cultural, social, behavioral and economic problems.  Americans should be focused on the more concrete issues in order to begin mobilizing a changing economic society.  Those concrete issues include "bad schools, no jobs for young men, broken families, neighborhoods without mediating institutions" (Brooks).  America has always done better when citizens are focused on opportunity and mobility rather than equality, according to Brooks.  The focus is not on class distinctions and statistics, but on family and individual aspirations.  Income inequality is not the problem itself; it is the outcome of a variety of interrelated problems.  Therefore, focus less on wealth and what the government can do to help; focus more on what the people can do as a community.

A common ideology among the American writers on the subject of income inequality explored here is that power to initiate change is within the people.  Socialistic views in which wealth is redistributed goes against that very idea.  Political science professor C. Bradley Thompson argues that capitalism, not socialism, is the moral social system in which people benefit, without government intervention, from one another as traders on the basis of mutual consent.  Forbes contributor Maura Pennington argues that the poor should take action in a capitalist society and that a free market provides Americans the opportunity to prosper.  Columnist David Brooks argues that income inequality is not the problem; it is a problem of several interrelated issues of behavior, culture, society, and the economy.  The most effective solution to income inequality lies within the power of the people to initiate action, as seen in the practice of capitalism.  On account of, what really makes a community so powerful?

Joseph Kay, an administrator for www.libcom.org describes a principle that very well describes the true essence of the power of community.  Anarcho-syndicalism, according to Kay, is a development which seeks to unite workers to fight for their interests at work, while having the freedom to do so.  Anarcho-syndicalists organize with others who agree with their aims and principles, and they network with a team whose members have a common goal.  As the networks grow in size and influence, they can begin initiating direct action.  In the act of self-organization, people work for themselves without being led by other officials.  Overall, the purpose is to involve other individuals who are aware of an issue so they can gain control and act on it.  It is based on the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" (Kay).  The community of anarcho-syndicalists seems powerless to higher officials, but when they act collectively, it is a different story.  In the case of approaching income inequality from a capitalist view, community can act collectively to encourage utilization of the resale industry in a free market to save money.

Realistically, income inequality is not a quick-fix.  It is an issue that has been around for hundreds of years in America, as well as in countries around the globe.  In order to tackle the income inequality issue, citizens should not have high expectations that it can get fixed in the short run.  The first step towards an effective approach to income inequality would be to fully adopt a capitalist mindset for Americans.  Rather than having limited wealth divided equally among all citizens, which socialism practices, the moral and effective approach to reducing the income gap would be to practice capitalism.  Wealth may become unequally distributed but it can have potential for unlimited growth as a result of individuals working for individual gain, free of the barriers which social distinctions create.  Under a free-enterprise system in which there is little government intervention, citizens work as a community to buy and sell from one another.  Free enterprise encourages...fairness based on merit and opportunity; it rewards entrepreneurship and encourages charity" (Arthur C. Brooks, American Enterprise Institute President).  Through reusing and reselling items, there is potential for saving a large amount of money for all.  Rather than spending more money that goes toward businesses, i.e. Walmart, citizens can profit from one another in a community of traders.  Many would say that to fix income inequality, one must allow the government to intervene and redistribute wealth to the ones who are in greater need.  However, the best approach would be to start small in hopes of seeing the long-term effect.  Through buying and selling from one another in a free-enterprise market, citizens can save a substantial amount of money, thus narrowing the income gap in the long run.
