What is the ideal spread of wealth in a healthy society

[BoberFett]

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

So you believe that the sum wealth owned by wealthiest 1% should be the same as the sum wealth owned by the bottom 1%? Do you know what a bell curve is?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Is there really any doubt that many on the left are just all out socialists? This thread seems to put that doubt to rest.

 

[jackace]

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?

Wealth does not have to consolidate only among business owners. Sure one wealthy guy is going to have more wealth then one middle class guy, but that doesn't mean we can't have 3 or 5 middle class guys for every 1 rich guy and those 3 to 5 middle class guys added together make more than that 1 rich guy.

As for the middle class owning all the wealth and no one being able to start a business, you are the one that needs to show your logic, because that is the very reason for our capital markets. They match buyers and sellers. With more wealth in the hands of the middle class we would have a lot more people in the system. Which IMO would make it better not worse.

 

[Atreus21]

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?

Neither Walmart nor McDonalds are monopolies. The only monopolistic behavior I can think of off the top of my head is by cartels like OPEC, over which we have very little influence.

Walmart and McDonald's don't take anything. They take only what customers voluntarily give them. What you're really arguing is that people should not be allowed to buy what they want, but rather what you think they ought to want.

 

[jackace]

Neither Walmart nor McDonalds are monopolies. The only monopolistic behavior I can think of off the top of my head is by cartels like OPEC, over which we have very little influence.

Walmart and McDonald's don't take anything. They take only what customer's voluntarily give them. What you're really arguing is that people should not be allowed to buy what they want, but rather what you think they ought to want.

LOL I didn't say Walmart or Mcdonalds were monopolies. I used them as examples of a large company.

 

[Atreus21]

LOL I didn't say Walmart or Mcdonalds were monopolies. I used them as examples of a large company.

Excuse the miscommunication. It sure seemed like you did.

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?

Even if you meant only large companies, the fact that a company is large does not suggest unfair business practices.

 

[CPA]

why do we concentrate so much on wealth? why are we so damn envious of what others have. Bill Gates wealth has no bearing on me.

Our country should not worry about the spread of wealth, it should worry about the spread of opportunity. And compared to other countries, we have it pretty damn good.

 

[CPA]

LOL I didn't say Walmart or Mcdonalds were monopolies. I used them as examples of a large company.

Then you need to better construct your arguments. It could easily be inferred that you were stating McDonald's and Walmarts as monopolies.

 

[jackace]

Excuse the miscommunication. It sure seemed like you did.



Even if you meant only large companies, the fact that a company is large does not suggest unfair business practices.

Never said just because a company is big they have used or will use unfair business practices. Usually to employ unfair business practices you need adequate resources to do so, which lends itself to being done by large corporations more so than the mom and pop store on the corner. That doesn't mean the mom and pop store can't or won't do the same, they just don't have the resources available to them.

 

[Mursilis]

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."

Re the question of wealth distribution. I thought that was obvious given the context of the thread. Obviously, unfairness may exist in other ways, but that's not the topic of this thread.

 

[jackace]

why do we concentrate so much on wealth? why are we so damn envious of what others have. Bill Gates wealth has no bearing on me.

Our country should not worry about the spread of wealth, it should worry about the spread of opportunity. And compared to other countries, we have it pretty damn good.

Actually we don't have it as good, and it seems to be getting a little worse every year. When you compare an average American to the average in other top countries we are declining or being passed as others are going up. Sure we aren't 3rd world bad, but if we wait until that point to address the issue it will be too late.

 

[jackace]

Re the question of wealth distribution. I thought that was obvious given the context of the thread. Obviously, unfairness may exist in other ways, but that's not the topic of this thread.

Wealth redistribution is more than just taxes. They include regulation and laws or lack there of which give certain groups greater opportunity to create wealth. So in that context all unfairness is included.

 

[zsdersw]

Many people who've posted in this thread seem to have forgotten something:

Our government and our laws are designed to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of result; to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make themselves wealthy, but not to ensure that everyone is wealthy.

It is not within the government's rights or purpose to make everyone "wealthy" by taking money from some to give to others. It is the government's purpose and right to prevent/prosecute/punish instances of fraud (as it threatens opportunity), but not to excessively tax (punish) wealth on behalf of those who want wealth.

We each decide for ourselves how far we get in life. There's no escaping it.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

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".

You and reality dont get along well do you?

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

 

[IceBergSLiM]

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.

you missed this part:
Simply becomes an issue of elevating our consciousness beyond the curren't materialistic/dollar is power paradigm.

 

[Atreus21]

Many people who've posted in this thread seem to have forgotten something:

Our government and our laws are designed to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of result; to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make themselves wealthy, but not to ensure that everyone is wealthy.

It is not within the government's rights or purpose to make everyone "wealthy" by taking money from some to give to others. It is the government's purpose and right to prevent/prosecute/punish instances of fraud (as it threatens opportunity), but not to excessively tax (punish) wealth on behalf of those who want wealth.

We each decide for ourselves how far we get in life. There's no escaping it.

qft.

 

[jackace]

Many people who've posted in this thread seem to have forgotten something:

Our government and our laws are designed to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of result; to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make themselves wealthy, but not to ensure that everyone is wealthy.

It is not within the government's rights or purpose to make everyone "wealthy" by taking money from some to give to others. It is the government's purpose and right to prevent/prosecute/punish instances of fraud (as it threatens opportunity), but not to excessively tax (punish) wealth on behalf of those who want wealth.

We each decide for ourselves how far we get in life. There's no escaping it.

This thread is not about equal results or everyone being wealthy. We know that based on our laws and regulations there is going to be a distribution of incomes. This thread is about what those distributions should look like in a healthy society.

 

[MJinZ]

Many people who've posted in this thread seem to have forgotten something:

Our government and our laws are designed to guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of result; to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to make themselves wealthy, but not to ensure that everyone is wealthy.

It is not within the government's rights or purpose to make everyone "wealthy" by taking money from some to give to others. It is the government's purpose and right to prevent/prosecute/punish instances of fraud (as it threatens opportunity), but not to excessively tax (punish) wealth on behalf of those who want wealth.

We each decide for ourselves how far we get in life. There's no escaping it.

Uh, no that's not how it works.

Our governments protect our rights, if you can afford lawyers.

Our governments allow you to make money by sitting on your ass, if you have investment money.

In reality, governments don't foster equal opportunities anymore than laws of desegregation has done much for eliminating racism.

Opportunity is given to you by your birth, your status, and your potential. There is no escaping those, except perhaps by a generous gift from Lady Luck.

Just as being born in third world with AIDs royally fucks up your opportunities, so does being born in America in the ghettos, with crappy circumstances, illnesses, subpar abilities, etc. It's all relative and there's hardly any "equal opportunity".

The laws are there to lay down a set of ground rules to play by, they do little to level the playing field.

 

[theeedude]

It should all be at the top, trickling down.

 

[zsdersw]

This thread is not about equal results or everyone being wealthy. We know that based on our laws and regulations there is going to be a distribution of incomes. This thread is about what those distributions should look like in a healthy society.

I don't really care what this thread is about, quite frankly.. and I will comment how I please.

The question asked by the OP is complete nonsense, and should be treated as such. There is no such thing as an "ideal spread of wealth" in a society, healthy or otherwise. The spread of wealth is the direct result of the choices and actions by members of that society; there's no way to look at it from the perspective of what's "ideal". We each make our lives what we want them to be.

 

[zsdersw]

Uh, no that's not how it works.

You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Our governments protect our rights, if you can afford lawyers.

There are plenty of free legal services.

Our governments allow you to make money by sitting on your ass, if you have investment money.

.. or welfare handouts. The difference between the two is that investment money isn't given to you out of everyone else's pockets by the full force of government.

In reality, governments don't foster equal opportunities anymore than laws of desegregation has done much for eliminating racism.

Desegregation wasn't about ending racism, it was about ending government sponsorship and support of racist beliefs. The battle over how we all think about and treat each other can never be won via the hand of government.

Opportunity is given to you by your birth, your status, and your potential. There is no escaping those, except perhaps by a generous gift from Lady Luck.

Not by a long shot. I'm the first person in my family to go to college and have a white-collar job. I could've easily decided to settle for what was laid out in front of me, but I chose something that I wanted and worked for it.

Just as being born in third world with AIDs royally fucks up your opportunities, so does being born in America in the ghettos, with crappy circumstances, illnesses, subpar abilities, etc. It's all relative and there's hardly any "equal opportunity".

There is not always equality of opportunity, but that's not something I claimed existed. I said the purpose of government is to ensure equality of opportunity, not that it is currently completely successful in doing so.

 

[MJinZ]

I don't really care what this thread is about, quite frankly.. and I will comment how I please.

The question asked by the OP is complete nonsense, and should be treated as such. There is no such thing as an "ideal spread of wealth" in a society, healthy or otherwise. The spread of wealth is the direct result of the choices and actions by members of that society; there's no way to look at it from the perspective of what's "ideal".

Um, yes there is an ideal spread of wealth.

You can either have a King and 1 million slaves, or 1 million average wealthed people.

You know which one is more ideal in any society.

The question about ideal wealth has been researched by economists and policy makers all the time, it is how the government redistributes wealth through taxes, incentives, etc, how it limits ownerships and powers, how it controls currency etc.

The answer is not going to be an exact science, but we already know the basics - like Banana Republics do not work.

 

[IGBT]

you EARN. you KEEP.

 

[zsdersw]

Um, yes there is an ideal spread of wealth.

You can either have a King and 1 million slaves, or 1 million average wealthed people.

You know which one is more ideal in any society.

Communism is more ideal? That's bullsh!t.

The question about ideal wealth has been researched by economists and policy makers all the time, it is how the government redistributes wealth through taxes, incentives, etc, how it limits ownerships and powers, how it controls currency etc.

All of which is entirely unnecessary.

The answer is not going to be an exact science, but we already know the basics - like Banana Republics do not work.

Those places never were and will probably never be a yardstick by which we can measure what America can/should be.

 

[spacejamz]

... "basic fairness has been achieved".

How is it fair that someone who busts their ass to make good grades, get a degree and a good job give their salary to someone who makes poor life choices, sits on their ass all day while surfing the net on their iphone while watching Springer before they head to the store with their WIC cards?