Income Disparity as an Anti-Poverty Tool

Continuing our conversation on income disparity, reader Owen Heslin ties his defense of growing income disparity with his perspective on the historical record:

If, in the course of human events, the only sustained decrease in poverty has been accompanied by a sustained increase in income disparity, it is quite possible that the latter may be a precondition for the former. If one could show me a period of human history where income disparity decreased, and poverty decreased, I would be more than willing to revise my opinion. But fighting poverty in our communities located in the real world must be guided by results, and not theory.

It hardly seems right to decry income disparity when history suggests it may in fact be necessary to lift people out of poverty. I know it's not right to adhere to theories that don't work, resigning the poor to sink into deeper poverty, while we pride ourselves on the Biblical rationale for doing so.

I find it difficult to believe that poverty and income disparity have never simultaneously decreased over the entire course of human history.  The French Revolution?  The New Deal?  If Heslin is correct, then shouldn't the Dorothy Day types among us be picketing for higher CEO pay and a reduced minimum wage?

And Matt Festa clarifies that the problem:

that is being reflected by growing income disparity is the lessening of mobility up and down. We live in a very demanding world that asks a lot ut of us. The people who tend to succeed in this world are highly motived and educated people. The data suggests that families tend to transmit these values better than others. Middle class and upper class families tend to provide better education for their children. How do we go about inculcating these values to those who are not exposed to them? How do we provide a better education for those that have them but do not have the means of providing them?

But isn't a mobility-focused concern regarding access to education wrapped up with some of the same economic policies that have facilitated the growing income disparity -- e.g., lower taxes making it more difficult to fully fund Head Start programs?  (For purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming that growing income disparity is a reality, then asking how Catholic legal theory should respond; the folks at Powerline have called into question Paul Krugman's initial column.)

It seems consensus may be beyond reach on this issue, so let me recast the question from the opposite premise: does anyone believe that growing income disparity, standing alone, is a problem from the perspective of Catholic legal theory?

Rob

UPDATE: Jonathan Watson offers this helpful pointer:I

I think it may help to recast the question of income disparity not as a problem in and of itself from the prespective of Catholic Legal Theory, but rather a symptom of some other problems which are definitely a concern of Catholic Legal Theory (CT). I think it would be a good idea to begin with the realistic principal that there will always be income disparity in society, no matter which form of economic system is used in a country (capitalist, communist, socialist, etc.). Catholic Legal Theory would agree, I think, with this principal, but would endeavor to insure that in spite of this disparity, those on the lower rungs of the income scale were not being unjustly deprived of those things necessary to life and spirit. The task then is to define what comprises the class of base goods; the natural goods (as I have read somewhere).  I suppose the question is really not whether an income disparity, but why an income disparity. If there is a trend whereby wealthy grow continually more so (whether or not at the expense of the poorer or middle class), why?

And PPK Blog offers a series of insightful, more narrowly framed questions.