What is the ideal spread of wealth in a healthy society

[MJinZ]

There are plenty of free legal services.

LOL, did not realize you could be so naive. Free legal services... lololol. Tell that to the firm I work in and why we do any pro bono at all.

.. 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.

More naivette. The primary purpose of welfare is social control. If you aren't going to at least feed them, they're going to knife you in the streets and torch your Lexus.

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.

Well, my point is that regardless of what Government officially "intends", that's not necessarily achievable.

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.

LOL, you actually think you deserved full credit for all of that? As if America's educational infrastructure, familial upbringing, social expectations had nothing to do with it. Lol... newsflash, everyone goes to college these days. Most people do it with one eye closed, the others graduate partying their ass off.

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.

Um, are you reading what you are writing?

There is not always equality of opportunity...

That's not something I claimed existed...

The purpose of government is to ensure equality of opportunity...

It is not currently successful in doing so...

 

[Genx87]

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.

Which countries and what criteria?

 

[shira]

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.

The problem is if the system is structured such that it causes extreme stratification of wealth. The policies of a "fair" system should certainly increase the odds that intelligence and hard work will lead to success. But the system should also ensure that the wealthy don't have a disproportionate influence on policy.

The problem with our system is that - increasingly - the wealthy have a great influence on policy, and the changing policies increasingly favor the wealthy. Just look at proposals for how to balance the budget; how much of the proposed cuts would come from programs that benefit the non-wealthy? In effect, those cuts are reducing the income of the non-wealthy only. Whether you take away $1000 of government-provided benefits from someone OR increase their taxes by $1000, the next effect is the same: That person has $1000 less.

Why doesn't someone from the right explain to us how reducing the effective income of the non-wealthy is any different from increasing the taxes on the non-wealthy?

 

[zsdersw]

LOL, did not realize you could be so naive. Free legal services... lololol. Tell that to the firm I work in and why we do any pro bono at all.

LOL.. I did not realize you could be so naive. http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/directory.html

More naivette. The primary purpose of welfare is social control. If you aren't going to at least feed them, they're going to knife you in the streets and torch your Lexus.

They still do those things even when on welfare.

Well, my point is that regardless of what Government officially "intends", that's not necessarily achievable.

There's no more perfect of an argument against all the social control, redistribution of wealth, and incentives/taxes you appear to support.

LOL, you actually think you deserved full credit for all of that? As if America's educational infrastructure, familial upbringing, social expectations had nothing to do with it. Lol... newsflash, everyone goes to college these days. Most people do it with one eye closed, the others graduate partying their ass off.

Actually, yes, I do deserve most of the credit. My primary education was laughable, to be honest. I did very little in high school yet I passed with a 3.5GPA. Yes, lots of people go to college these days, but considering my family's background it's amazing I was able to afford it. They weren't able to help me much. They did raise me well, though.. which doesn't require a lot of money.

Um, are you reading what you are writing?

There is not always equality of opportunity...

That's not something I claimed existed...

The purpose of government is to ensure equality of opportunity...

It is not currently successful in doing so...

Yes I am. Are you reading what I'm writing? Just because the government has the purpose I outlined doesn't mean it is 100% successful in achieving its purpose. It is a big, blunt instrument and is not well suited to work that requires surgical precision.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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?

lol, that's what I was thinking when reading through this thread. Silly libs...

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

lol, that's what I was thinking when reading through this thread. Silly libs...

Then neither of you understands how to read a graph, or at least how to construct one. The 'x' axis would be total wealth, where the left extreme is zero wealth and the right extremes are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The 'y' axis is number of people. A bell curve would have very few people with little wealth, very few people with extreme wealth, and most people centered in between.

Silly nutters.

 

[Mursilis]

More naivette. The primary purpose of welfare is social control. If you aren't going to at least feed them, they're going to knife you in the streets and torch your Lexus.

If you truly believe that, you're a coward for caving into their threats.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Then neither of you understands how to read a graph, or at least how to construct one. The 'x' axis would be total wealth, where the left extreme is zero wealth and the right extremes are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The 'y' axis is number of people. A bell curve would have very few people with little wealth, very few people with extreme wealth, and most people centered in between.

Silly nutters.

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

?????

 

[shira]

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.

Your response ignores the fact that the distribution of wealth is greatly affected by the laws of the society, and the laws are greatly influenced by the power of wealth.

It should be obvious that very few people with wealth are going to willingly accept less; hence, the wealthy will push for laws that maintain or increase their advantage. And since the wealthy have disproportionate power, the laws will tend to evolve to the advantage of the wealthy. If you don't think that's less than "ideal," you're just deluding yourself.

 

[zsdersw]

Your response ignores the fact that the distribution of wealth is greatly affected by the laws of the society, and the laws are greatly influenced by the power of wealth.

Neither of those things should exist, and sometimes they don't.. or don't apply. The only ideal is equal opportunity for and equal advocacy of all, regardless of how much money they have.

It should be obvious that very few people with wealth are going to willingly accept less; hence, the wealthy will push for laws that maintain or increase their advantage. And since the wealthy have disproportionate power, the laws will tend to evolve to the advantage of the wealthy. If you don't think that's less than "ideal," you're just deluding yourself.

Why must wealth be taken or limited via the full force of government in the form of taxes and regulations?

 

[shira]

Neither of those things should exist, and sometimes they don't.. or don't apply. The only ideal is equal opportunity for and equal advocacy of all, regardless of how much money they have.

What should or shouldn't be the case is irrelevant. What matters is what IS. And what IS the case in the United States is that the laws are increasingly giving more to the wealthy and taking away from the non-wealthy. And that in turn increasingly makes opportunity LESS equal.

Suppose you and I are exactly equal in ability and drive. But suppose that YOU grow up in a wealthy family and I grow up in a poor family. Do you really think the opportunities I'll have will be equal to yours?

Why must wealth be taken or limited via the full force of government in the form of taxes and regulations?

What's actually happening is that all of the calls for "smaller government" will effectively take more from the non-wealthy than from the wealthy. Why do you think that's better than taking more from the wealthy?

 

[zsdersw]

What should or shouldn't be the case is irrelevant. What matters is what IS. And what IS the case in the United States is that the laws are increasingly giving more to the wealthy and taking away from the non-wealthy. And that in turn increasingly makes opportunity LESS equal.

No, it's entirely relevant. If we have no goal to strive for, what's the point? What, exactly, are we giving to the wealthy out of the pockets/hands of the non-wealthy?

Suppose you and I are exactly equal in ability and drive. But suppose that YOU grow up in a wealthy family and I grow up in a poor family. Do you really think the opportunities I'll have will be equal to yours?

Yes. It happens quite often. Upward mobility is guaranteed for no one, but available to everyone.

What's actually happening is that all of the calls for "smaller government" will effectively take more from the non-wealthy than from the wealthy. Why do you think that's better than taking more from the wealthy?

How so?

 

[Patranus]

Wealth should be distributed however the market distributes it.
There is no "idea" spread of wealth in a "healthy" society.

 

[Bowfinger]

?????

Maths is hard.

 

[spacejamz]

Suppose you and I are exactly equal in ability and drive. But suppose that YOU grow up in a wealthy family and I grow up in a poor family. Do you really think the opportunities I'll have will be equal to yours?

I guess two can play your game...Suppose you are middle class family make the right choices in life (finish school, etc) and get a job that pays $100K a year. Say John Doe also from a middle class family hangs with wrong crowd, does drugs, has no motivation in life (probably related to his bad choices) and sits on his couch all day watching TV with no job.

You would have no problem giving away 1/2 your salary to him so that you are now both equals???

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Maths is hard.

Yep, sandorski doesn't get it. I understand what you stated, but it's not what was presented. Congrats - you are 1 lib that understands a bit of math...

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Fail, as usual.

The difference between a king and a slave is not one of money, but of self-determination. Rich or poor, the man who chooses his own fate is a king. The only reason the king had lots of money was because of... wait for it... government. He was able to tax his subjects due to the system of government which subjugated everyone to the king. Laws create kings and serfs, not wealth or lack thereof.

 

[BoberFett]

Then neither of you understands how to read a graph, or at least how to construct one. The 'x' axis would be total wealth, where the left extreme is zero wealth and the right extremes are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The 'y' axis is number of people. A bell curve would have very few people with little wealth, very few people with extreme wealth, and most people centered in between.

Silly nutters.

/facepalm

The question stated was:

What is the ideal spread of wealth in a healthy society

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?

Of course the top 1% possesses more than the bottom 1%. Otherwise they wouldn't be the top 1%.

A bell curve would apply to a different set of axes than wealth distribution.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Of course the top 1% possesses more than the bottom 1%. Otherwise they wouldn't be the top 1%.

Sure, but that was never in question.

A bell curve would apply to a different set of axes than wealth distribution.

Umm ... that really depends on your vision of how wealth should be distributed. It can be distributed in a bell curve fashion, or it can be distributed in a way that produces a heavily lopsided graph ... which is what we have today. As I understood the original suggestion (forget whose), his ideal would be a bell curve distribution.

 

[xj0hnx]

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.

What's funny is that the poor and middle class today are all more able to have those things than ever. Hell we aren't that far from the official poverty line, and have a 50" plasma, bad ass home theater, a couple good computers, two decent cars, mah celly y0, and a nice townhouse. We can't go out and drop a stack on a new car ...don't want to. What's really funny is I more than a couple people that make two, three, four times what we do, and are up shit creek without a paddle. Most people I know that are "broke" all seem to have cable, flat sceens, homes, cars, etc. Living within your means is a lost art in this country.

 

[DominionSeraph]

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.

What grade-school linearity. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way that:
"First, everything comes from God. Then all men are created equal, and each prospers according to his efforts."

Instead, the government supports power disparities so as not to have anarchy. People can leverage these power disparities to leave little room for advancement through effort but by means which they own. Because they own the means, they can siphon off the majority of any additional effort with little recourse.

People do not become billionaires because they themselves did a billion dollars worth of labor. They become billionaires by leveraging property rights to lay claim to a billion dollars of output of other laborers.
If the government does not respond to limit management's control over labor, revolution ensues.

Because we don't have the fine-grained discernment and control mechanisms to control things on the front-end and make it so these power disparities never happen in the first place, we control things on the back-end. It is government's place to tax the hell out of the rich to return the fruits of the laborers to the laborers.
But your average Republican is too stupid to grasp this dual nature of government. The rich ones do, though, and they're laughing all the way to the bank, where they're depositing the money they've skimmed from the labor of the other 99%.

 

[BoberFett]

You're not making any sense Bowfinger. A bell curve would mean that the aggregate wealth of everyone in the top 1% would be the same as the aggregate wealth of the bottom 1%. That's mathematically impossible.

 

[Scotteq]

You're not making any sense Bowfinger. A bell curve would mean that the aggregate wealth of everyone in the top 1% would be the same as the aggregate wealth of the bottom 1%. That's mathematically impossible.

I believe he is looking at it as the distribution of numbers of *people* on the graph, as a function of their wealth. Ideally very few of the poorest, very few rich, most in the middle - narrow on either end, fat in the middle.

Whereas the original question is %age of total wealth against what %age of people.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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

This. Providing, however, that basic life necessities are obtainable to those at the bottom end of the curve still.

 

[Infohawk]

Even poor people these days have enough money to live beyond the means of what someone would have had a hundred years ago. The only thing we need to worry about is what the founders worried about, that entrenched wealth will wield aristocratic power. A reasonable estate tax (+5 million in this day and age) is enough to do take care of that. Other than that, people need to stop whining.