What is the ideal spread of wealth in a healthy society

[mjrpes3]

From the nytimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html?ref=opinion

But there is also a larger question: What kind of a country do we aspire to be? Would we really want to be the kind of plutocracy where the richest 1 percent possesses more net worth than the bottom 90 percent?

Oops! That’s already us. The top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of America’s private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent.

Is our current level of inequality too low or too high? What is the ideal spread of wealth in the best of all societies?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ideally, I would own 100% of the wealth. :awe:

I'm workin' on it...

 

[sandorski]

Should be a Bell Curve with the majority of Wealth in the Middle.

 

[boomerang]

The New York Times - LOL!

 

[Phokus]

Ideal spread of wealth per GOP: The Rich control all of it, and the poor/middle class can go fuck themselves.

 

[jackace]

Should be a Bell Curve with the majority of Wealth in the Middle.

This^^

We know that money buys power in all forms. So as a society we would want to give power to as many people as possible, and the largest group of people in our society is the middle class.

Edit -

Here is another good quote from the article:

"One of America’s greatest features has been its economic mobility, in contrast to Europe’s class system. This mobility may explain why many working-class Americans oppose inheritance taxes and high marginal tax rates. But researchers find that today this rags-to-riches intergenerational mobility is no more common in America than in Europe — and possibly less common."

 

[Mursilis]

I don't think the question is as relevant as we all think it is; if the needs of nearly all are being met, then basic fairness has been achieved.

 

[jackace]

I don't think the question is as relevant as we all think it is; if the needs of nearly all are being met, then basic fairness has been achieved.

So what as long as everyone has shelter, food and water nothing else matters at all? Come on you can't seriously believe that?

 

[Ancalagon44]

So what as long as everyone has shelter, food and water nothing else matters at all? Come on you can't seriously believe that?

Its also very contrary to the American Dream and very close to communism. As long as you have food and water, dont complain, and dont forget that we are your masters. Now bend over.

 

[Mursilis]

So what as long as everyone has shelter, food and water nothing else matters at all? Come on you can't seriously believe that?

Never said that; I merely think that at the point everyone has shelter, food, and water, the gov't has no further role in addressing inequality. If you want to live beyond the baseline, that's up to you, not your fellow citizens.

 

[Mursilis]

Its also very contrary to the American Dream and very close to communism. As long as you have food and water, dont complain, and dont forget that we are your masters. Now bend over.

What a dumbass. What I said has almost nothing in common with communism; it's a lot closer to libertarianism.

 

[jackace]

Never said that; I merely think that at the point everyone has shelter, food, and water, the gov't has no further role in addressing inequality. If you want to live beyond the baseline, that's up to you, not your fellow citizens.

You did say that, and you just said it again in this post. As long as people have food, water and shelter the government shouldn't care about anything else.

What about things like monopolies and other unfair business practices? The government should not do anything to step in and keep the Walmarts, McDonald's, etc of the world from just taking what they want as long as everyone has some place to sleep, something to eat and water to drink?

 

[piasabird]

The way most people become wealthy is they work hard at more than one job, seek the best education they can get and they work on multiple projects at the same time. So trying to redistribute wealth is a little silly. So are you a communist?

On the other hand we could make everyone live in a government supplied apartment based on a set number of square feet per occupants. That way no matter how much money you could make you would be restricted to working where the government said and living where the government says you can live. Well I am not for the government running everything, but I could see a little more government planning and restriction on sizes of homes and apartments to control prices and rent.

There are problems today in many places in the USA because the rich people have been allowed to buy up all the land and it drives up the prices on homes because the supply of land has shrunk. This is all about control and power. The government does not have to allow people to buy up large tracks of land just because they can. This is really a two edged sword. We actually need some areas with no development, but that land should either be controlled by the government or if held privately, larger tracks of undeveloped land should have higher tax rates.

There is a fine line between the government forcing everyone into poverty and proper management of resources. Just because you can build a house with 5,000 sq ft for 2 people, it does not mean it should be allowed.

 

[Genx87]

So what as long as everyone has shelter, food and water nothing else matters at all? Come on you can't seriously believe that?

If you can live a comfortable life what is wrong with that? I never understood the idea that govt can somehow legislate everybody to be "rich". "Rich" is a moving goalpost.

 

[Mursilis]

You did say that, and you just said it again in this post. As long as people have food, water and shelter the government shouldn't care about anything else.

What about things like monopolies and other unfair business practices? The government should not do anything to step in and keep the Walmarts, McDonald's, etc of the world from just taking what they want as long as everyone has some place to sleep, something to eat and water to drink?

Don't you understand the difference between social and economic policy? Preventing monopolies and related business practices is warranted on efficiency grounds, not just social policy grounds. Stop assuming what isn't there in what I wrote.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ideal spread of wealth per GOP: The Rich control all of it, and the poor/middle class can go fuck themselves.

Ideal spread of wealth per Democrats: Tax the Rich as much as possible and then tax them some more, further increase the number of people who don't pay any taxes (currently 43&#37...lie to the middle class telling them that you really care and then stab them in the back by raising their taxes. The middle class is where the real money is and, after all, somebody has to pay for all the spending.

This isn't about spreading wealth to the middle class...it's about spreading wealth from the rich AND middle class to the government and the "poor".

 

[Genx87]

I cant believe people are stupid enough to believe either party is interested in helping the middle class. Republicans are fine with the status quo. Democrats are looking to enslave them with govt subsidies and programs. Neither help them and only want to consolidate more power within govt.

 

[Circlenaut]

should be a bell curve with the majority of wealth in the middle.

rofl, when pigs fly. But yeah, that would be ideal...

 

[Slew Foot]

I cant believe people are stupid enough to believe either party is interested in helping the middle class. Republicans are fine with the status quo. Democrats are looking to enslave them with govt subsidies and programs. Neither help them and only want to consolidate more power within govt.

But but buuut buttt buu bub BOOOOSSSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!

 

[PokerGuy]

Just because you can build a house with 5,000 sq ft for 2 people, it does not mean it should be allowed.

Yes, it does. Don't know what kind of government nanny state you want to live in, but in the US people should be free to spend their money on whatever they please without you or some government lackey telling them what they do or don't need.

 

[matt0611]

Ideal spread of wealth per GOP: The Rich control all of it, and the poor/middle class can go fuck themselves.

Ideal spread of wealth per Democrats: Tax the shit out of everyone. 99.9% of wealth to our government overlords, .1 % to the serfs (everyone else)

Isn't this fun? :biggrin:

But seriously, there is no answer. Whatever the free market decides.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Everyone should not want for anything. There is no shortage of resources. Simply becomes an issue of elevating our consciousness beyond the curren't materialistic/dollar is power paradigm.

 

[drebo]

Everyone should not want for anything. There is no shortage of resources. Simply becomes an issue of elevating our consciousness beyond the curren't materialistic/dollar is power paradigm.

So everyone who wants a cellphone or LCD TV or 22 inch pimpstar rims or a huge gaming computer or a Lambo should be entitled to have one?

No, you've completely missed the mark.

 

[drebo]

Should be a Bell Curve with the majority of Wealth in the Middle.

Not viable except in an economy where the government owns all business.

The act of private enterprise by itself consolidates wealth among business owners. That is not an inherent problem. It only becomes a problem when all risk of failure is removed (see the bailouts, GM, and "too big to fail").

If the "middle class" owned all of the wealth, no one would ever be wealthy enough to start a private business.

You have a serious issue with logic. Have you seen a shrink?

 

[jackace]

Don't you understand the difference between social and economic policy? Preventing monopolies and related business practices is warranted on efficiency grounds, not just social policy grounds. Stop assuming what isn't there in what I wrote.

So the government would step in to make rules and regulations so competition can be "fair" for everyone? That is not what you said in your first post when you said "...if the needs of nearly all are being met, then basic fairness has been achieved." Basic needs for everyone can be met under slavery so based on your statement "basic fairness has been achieved".