Among many groups mentioned during this election cycle have been the “1-percenters,” an exhalted class of Americans so wealthy that they form the upper 1 percent of the population. Many people look down upon this group; politicians like Bernie Sanders have voiced avid interest in jacking up taxes on it with aim of smoothing out the landscape that is wealth inequality.

Who really are the one-percenters? Are they a nefarious group of rich folk who are out to live in luxury while the middle class suffers, or a highly productive group of Americans contributing to the growth of the economy? The answer lies within a realm most often ignored by those so intent on persecuting them.

It is important to first make the distinction between income inequality and wealth inequality because both terms are bandied about often. Household income is a household’s annual inflow of wages, interests and profits, whereas wealth is the difference between a family’s assets (such as a house, car or business) and debts.

There is no question that both income and wealth inequality exist in this country, with the latter being much greater in terms of disparity. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2013, the median wealth of the nation’s upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families ($96,500). Such a contrast may urge some to immediately declare injustice, but a closer look at the details will advise a different reaction.

One of the most important variables often exempt from characterizing the top 1 percent is its fluctuation. In other words, the top 1 percent is not consistently composed of the same group of individuals year after year.

Data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that more than half the people who were in the top 1 percent in 1996, were no longer there in 2005. Thomas Sowell, economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, explains this peculiarity: “These are not permanent classes, but mostly people at current income levels reached by spikes in income that do not last. These income spikes can occur for all sorts of reasons [such as] selling homes, receiving inheritances or from a gamble that pays off, whether in the stock market, real estate market or Las Vegas.”

Those keen on depicting the top 1 percent dishonestly often do so in a way that makes them seem like they are only a fixed group of elites that rule over Wall Street, rather than a diverse collection of individuals who have reached this mark through a lifetime of hard work and financial prudence.

The same can be said for the other end of the table. Most college students currently place within the bottom 5 percent of average individual incomes in the United States. This is not because we have an economic system that is inherently discriminatory against college students, but rather that they have yet to secure a full-time job, or lived long enough to accumulate funds, build wealth and transcend their current economic rank.

Many people see those at the top and automatically assume the worse, suggesting that they took advantage of those at the bottom. But we know that there are innumerable factors that lead to the difference between our bank accounts and those of our neighbors. Inequality does not necessarily denote inequity.

Efforts by the federal government to close the gap between the affluent and the middle class have often had deleterious effects on the economy. Increases in the minimum wage have burdened small businesses that have been forced to cut budgets by cutting employees. Welfare programs have helped people who are in poverty rather than helping them out of poverty. And increased taxes on corporations have driven large companies to seek employment overseas rather than here in the states.

Reduction in government spending, limited regulation and lowering taxes are surely the remedy here, best demonstrated by the unprecedented 92-month long economic boom that took place in the United States from November 1982 to July 1990, when supply-side economic policies under President Reagan’s administration helped increase the GDP by 36 percent, employment by over 20 million jobs and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by a whopping 15 percent.

Resist being so tough on those at the top. Wealth inequality is not the result of a rigged system, but rather a healthy economy that hosts a gamut of individuals with different careers, visions and work ethics. A progressive tax not only does little to aid the economy through undercutting incentive, but it is also profoundly unethical; people have a right to what they earn.

Consider the opposite scenario, where wealth inequality is completely eradicated and we adopt an absolute, egalitarian society. That is what would be known as communism, which does not have a great track record. Americans need to worry less about those at the top and more about what they can individually give to the economy, rather than what the economy can give to them.

Brian Deinstadt is a junior double-majoring in political science and English.