1.

Does justice require our society to attempt to

move toward a more equal distribution of
income? How might it attempt to do so? How
equal should distribution of income be?

Justice:

• The quality of being just fairness.

• The principle of moral rightness and equity.

Society:

A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual

interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and
a common culture.

Distribution:

Distribution in economics refers to the way total output or income is

distributed among individuals or among the factors of production.

Income Distribution:

In economics, income distribution is how a nation’s total economy is

distributed amongst its population. Income distribution has always been a
central concern of economic theory and economic policy.

Modern economists have also addressed this issue, but have been more
concerned with the distribution of income across individuals and households.
Important theoretical and policy concerns include the relationship between
income inequality and economic growth.

1
If we suppose that justice demands equalizing the income of wealth of
persons in many circumstances, there should be principles of justice to
generate this Demand.

Some philosophers and social critics have made confident pronouncements

in

response to these questions. Writing about the distribution of money and

commodities in contemporary democracies, political theorist observes that
insufficient income excludes a citizen from full membership in society, but
the norm of democratic equality requires that all citizens should enjoy the
same full membership, so by one means or another all citizens must be
assured a sufficient level of money. Moreover, there are some things that
money should not be able to buy: in any society, the social meanings of
particular goods rule out their exchange by sale. Votes should not be
tradeable, nor the obligation to perform military service, and there are more
controversial prohibited or strictly regulated exchanges. If the assurance of
sufficient income and

wealth guarantees full membership to all citizens, and if only those goods
are for sale that should be for sale according to our shared values, then
according to someone else, “there is no such thing as a maldistribution of
consumer goods. It just doesn’t matter, from the standpoint of complex
equality, that you have a yacht and I don’t, or that the sound system of her
hi-fi is greatly superior to his, or that we buy our rugs from Sears Roebuck
and they get theirs from the Orient. People will focus on such matters, or not:
that is a question of culture, not of distributive justice.”

This attractive sounding position comprises three claims:

• Regarding the distribution of income and wealth, what matters morally

is that everyone should have enough

2
• A person has enough when poverty does not block her from being a full
member of democratic society

• Provided everyone has enough, that some people have more income
and wealth than others violates no fundamental principle of justice and
morality.

A small number of people getting a large portion of the income, planners

have to look for ways to justly redistribute some of the income so that the
poor aren't as poor and the rich aren't as rich. Some of the options that they
consider include taxes, in-kind transfers, subsidies, welfare, and provision of
employment.

Employment is the main pillar of reduction in income inequality. It is believed

that the degree of inequality of income depends closely on the volume of
employment which the economy is apable of generating. The disappearance
of unemployment is regarded as indication that the structure of the economy
has changed and a pre-requisite for reduction of inequality has been fulfilled.
The aim of more equitable distribution of income is closely associated with
the policy of attaining maximum employment.

Justice is required for income distribution:

Justice is very required to distribute the income equally. According to my

openion everybody should be treated according to his akills and abilities. If it
is not done so and distribute of income to every body is make possible by
same measure this itself will be an inequal distribution.

When income distribution gets very skewed, with a small number of people
getting a large portion of the income, planners have to look for ways to justly
redistribute some of the income so that the poor aren't as poor and the rich
aren't as rich. Some of the options that they consider nclude taxes, in-kind
transfers, subsidies, welfare, and provision of employment.

3
Income diaparity in Pakistan society:

Pakistan is a country with abundant resources but unfortunately and

tragically corruption and corrupt leaders have plagued our great nation for
generations. Despite all the adversity I believe it is still applaud able the
success and growth our country has been able to achieve. One of the core
problems of Pakistan is the huge gap between the social elites and the poor.
Pakistan is home to some of the wealthiest people around industrialists,
politicians, ironically civil servants. However at the same time a major chunk
of the population is living below the poverty line.

Most people are brought up by their parents believing that rich people are
greedy. The argument is something like this - 'If you earn more money than
you need, you are taking more than your share of the pie and in turn
stopping poorer people from earning a decent living'.

'Poor people' would complain about how greedy the rich were whilst his 'rich
' always insisted that 'poor people were greedier than the rich'.

This is a hard concept to get your head around but once you think about it
you will see that it is actually quite a logical statement

Think about the advantages a Rich person has over a poor person

1: Money never gets in the way of what they want to achieve or give

2: They are no longer 'forced to work' instead they are able to spend their
time working on exactly what they want

Therefore Rich people have both TIME & MONEY to help other people and
make a positive impact on the world. Poor people on the other hand have
neither time of money. Instead most of them are so preoccupied with
material survival that they don't even have enough time to look after
themselves let alone help others.

4
You can see such type of situation where people do not have any sense to
live, they are living a miserable life, drinking unhygienic water, eating un
healthy food, have no sense of sanitation at all, where there is no source of
earning yet they have the luxuries like televisions at home and have cable
connections.

The opposing argument that We regularly hear goes something like this -

Most rich people hardly give anything to charity or if they do they are only
doing it to gain popularity.

Firstly, most of the people that we hear this from don't give anything to
charity instead saying that "If I ever become Rich I will donate lots of money
then'. And secondly giving to charity shouldn't be about how much you give
it should simply be about helping people.

People should have to raise their goals. Rather than aiming to just pay your
bills why not aiming to earn enough income so that you have the TIME &
MONEY to help as many other people as you can. The best lesson that people
can learn is that they should let money work for them, not work for money.
This will allow you to spend your time doing exactly what you want. Once
you have time and money you can really decide how generous you would
like to be, who knows maybe you could even start your own charity one day.

According to the World Bank “In Pakistan, 30 to 35 percent of the population

is living on one dollar a day,"

In our economy, growing income disparity is more pronounced. Our wages

become stagnant, middle class have a high tax burden and the prices of
food, gas, housing and health care have risen. So in the result family budget
tightened. Means postponed doctor appointments, missed vacations,
delayed credit card payments etc.

5
In 2006, it has been reported by the government that almost 20% population
of Pakistan earners earned more than 80% combined. So, now mostly people
interested in protecting the strategic interest in United States either giving
high priority to government.

There are some policies which are against the poor people. Government
signed an agreement of Millennium Declaration in 2000 just to make policies
for poor people. But still people are falling below the poverty line.

The income inequalities have been increasing sharply since 1990’s and have
been much higher in the urban areas

Distribution of income should equal:

Justice is very required to distribute the income equally. According to my

openion everybody should be treated according to his akills and abilities. If it
is not done so and distribute of income to every body is make possible by
same measure this itself will be an inequal distribution.

For every occupation there should be a fix rate of income according to the
specification of that job.