An interesting
article, though larded with socialist undertones. (My thanks to Ric Woz for finding this.)
As long as the lower disparity between highest/lowest incomes is not a result of wealth "redistribution" (i.e., theft by government), I doubt such is in any way harmful.
With no state income (personal or business) tax, Wyoming is obviously not one of those "Robin Hood" states.
I've been to many countries (e.g., Mexico) where the disparity was staggering, translating into a very small middle class (which I regard vital for social and political stability). So, the fact that Wyoming (even after including all the Jackson area m/billionaires) has the narrowest gulf between its "Haves" and "Have Nots" bodes very well for its stability.
I'm certainly not arguing for economic equality, but I think the more
laissez-faire a state, the more prosperous its lower classes in comparison to its most affluent--which can only be good. Allow people to be free, and you will see bell curve wealth, which reflects bell curve talent and drive.
Great disparities of wealth amongst a people (and with a small middle class) generally indicate government intervention
somewhere.
