Income Disparities Damage Democratic Ideals

...simply put, do they?
What do you guys think? Do you agree, in that Income Disparities damage Democratic ideals?
For those of you who would like some definitions, here are the definitions I would use, as a proponent of the negative, which states that income disparity doesn't damage democratic ideals:

Ideals: A standard of perfection; a principle to be aimed at - (Souce: Oxford English Dictionary.

Democracy: Majority rule: the doctrine that the numberical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group. [1] A political system providing for the participation of citizens in political decision making, often by the election of representatives to governing bodies. [2] (Source [1]: Princeton WordNet) (Source [2]: Polity, a social science and humanities glossary)

Threat/Threaten: a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. (Source: Oxford English Dictionary) More loosely defined, something with the possibility of damaging someone or something.

I believe income and disparity are fairly self-explanatory in their meaning.
So what would you say for or against the statement/resolution that "Income disparity damages democratic ideals"?

Yeah.

...

No.

...

What?

I suppose that means I didn't explain it very well. D:
What's confusing about it?

Ehm, mainly the wording. I understand what all the words mean by themselves, but together...

It's funny how that works.

Alright then...in essence all it's saying is that "Difference in wealth damages democratic ideals."
Does that makes things clearer? =)

Edit: *Funeral March plays as thread dies an agonizingly slow death*

- 3D

I don't know if it screws up the democratic system, but I don't like how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Rich people should spread their money around a little.