Study finds wealthy Americans have different idea of what makes a just society

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

'The goal of lowering their standard of living'? What is wrong with you? This is like the time the otherwise very wise John Irving said that rich people in Vermont were a persecuted class.

If you're goal is to lower economic inequality, then you have two goals:
a) To make one part of society poorer.
b) To make another part of society richer.

Unless that isn't the goal?

Are you certain your a conservative?  Generally speaking conservatives don't express economics as a zero-sum game.  When it comes to lowering tax rates on the rich, eliminating business regulations such as those promoting a clean environment or safe working conditions, free trade to enable products to imported from countries with legal sweatshops, and a whole host of other conservative economic nostrums the constant refrains have been that a rising tide will lift all boats and that the benefits government grants the rich will tickle down to the poor.  Its unusual for an economic conservative to so openly express disdain for the poor schmucks are needed as votes by the robber barons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The government should not take from some, with the goal of lowering their standard of living to give to others, even if the goal is to heighten their standard of living.

'The goal of lowering their standard of living'? What is wrong with you? This is like the time the otherwise very wise John Irving said that rich people in Vermont were a persecuted class.

If you're goal is to lower economic inequality, then you have two goals:
a) To make one part of society poorer.
b) To make another part of society richer.

Unless that isn't the goal?

Are you certain your a conservative?  Generally speaking conservatives don't express economics as a zero-sum game.  When it comes to lowering tax rates on the rich, eliminating business regulations such as those promoting a clean environment or safe working conditions, free trade to enable products to imported from countries with legal sweatshops, and a whole host of other conservative economic nostrums the constant refrains have been that a rising tide will lift all boats and that the benefits government grants the rich will tickle down to the poor.  Its unusual for an economic conservative to so openly express disdain for the poor schmucks are needed as votes by the robber barons.

Where did I say that such politics would hurt the poor, or that should be a specific goal of governmental policy? I'm merely saying that it is not the role of government to make some people poorer and others richer. I do think the goal of government is to make everyone richer, mostly through the techniques described in your post (though I do think providing for a clean environment, ensuring the air is breathable and the water potable, is part of a government's job). I'm not sure you quite understand the point I'm trying to make.

I understood you quite well. You asserted that it would be impossible to reduce economic inequality without hurting the rich while simultaneously aiding the poor.  If that isn't what you meant, then your ability to express yourself has more flaws than using homophones correctly.