Equality of income opportunity.

If Zion defined equality as equality of income opportunity, Zion would ensure that all households have the same opportunity to receive income, then let households choose their own income level. Incomes would generally differ across households with the same needs and circumstances.

.

Guaranteeing a minimum income. 

If Zion adopted a “no poor” definition of equality, Zion need only ensure that no household has an income below a certain level and would be unconcerned about any remaining inequality. Moses 7:18 states that there were “no poor” in Enoch’s Zion. In the Zion described in 4 Nephi 1:3, there were neither rich nor poor. With equalized incomes, there would be no rich or poor in Zion 21.0.

Equality described by scripture and Church leaders.

Two key scriptures speak about equality in Zion:

It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20)

 

In your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld. (Doctrine and Covenants 70:14)

Both scriptures emphasize that members of Zion should be equal in temporal things. A fundamental feature of equality of opportunity is that people and households will make different choices, resulting in different levels of earning and different levels of income and spending power. Hence, equality of opportunity would not result in the equality of temporal things described in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote about equality in Zion: 

The united order further provides that the members of a community share equally in the material returns of the activities of the whole community. Since the wants of a community are satisfied only by a variety of necessary labor, some yielding large, other small, material gains, the united order provides that, if a man work to the full of his ability, all the working days of his life, he should have an equal share in the material gains of the community, whatever his labor may be. (Rational Theology, 137, emphasis added) 

Working for Zion.

When Zion is organized to provide an equal income for all households, adjusted for need, those who work are working for Zion. Nephi wrote, “But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish” (2 Nephi 26:30–31). In Zion 21.0, people would work for the benefit of Zion and not for their own gain, which gain can be expressed in money. The income that a household receives would benefit all Zion households, not just the household receiving the income. This system would help Zion members fulfil Paul’s injunction, “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth” (1 Corinthians 10:24).

In contrast, if the equality standard were equal earning opportunity or “no poor,” those who work would be working for themselves. A household that earned an additional $1,000 would keep most or all of the benefit for itself. 

Equality of income opportunity is not attainable.

There are multiple reasons to believe that equality of income opportunity could never be successfully implemented in Zion. Here are three:

• Equality could never be achieved in practical terms. 

The income that an individual receives depends on two groups of factors. In the first group are the factors that individuals control. Choosing to work hard, take advantage of educational opportunities, and strive for success all tend to improve people’s financial condition. The second group, also important, are the factors that individuals do not control. These include basic intelligence; physical abilities; many environmental factors like family upbringing, social contacts, and educational and employment opportunities; and a measure of good (or bad) luck. Some of these factors could not be controlled or adjusted. It would not be possible for Zion to adjust environmental factors to such a degree that other differences were exactly offset and everyone had the same opportunity to earn income. Even if it had that ability, Zion would not be able to measure pure opportunity (separated from an individual’s effort) to make sure that opportunity is equal.

• Equality of income opportunity would be even more impractical among adults.

Many of the factors affecting income potential are determined when a person is young. When a future Zion would be established, those who are earning incomes would already be adults. Each would already have an educational background and experience in a particular field of work. It is even more obvious that these adults could not be transformed to have the same earning potential.

• Equality of income opportunity could not be adjusted for needs and circumstances.

Equality is supposed to be adjusted for needs and circumstances. (See D&C 51:3. For more discussion, see here.) A simple example of a need difference is the number of people in a household. As need changes over time, earning opportunity would have to change as well. For instance, under an equal-opportunity system, a married couple without children would have a certain income potential and a certain level of need. The household need increases when children join the family, while at the same time the mother may stop working. The income earning potential of the father would have to more than double to maintain the same need-adjusted level as before. Later in life, need decreases as children leave home, and the mother starts working again. To adjust, the income potential of the father would have to be drastically reduced. There is no apparent way to adjust income potential up and down as would be required.