What is the ideal spread of wealth in a healthy society

[spacejamz]

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.

It really doesn't matter the 'lower' class has the 47" Tv's, and iphones...

Since the rich have 73" 240hz LED Tv's, a white 32GB iphone4 and 64GB 3GS ipad, they are jealous and cry foul that the rich have everything!!!

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

That's not what it means at all. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but you're missing how one can graphically represent wealth distribution.

 

[sandorski]

Sure, but that was never in question.



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.

X axis is Population, Y Axis Wealth share. Middle Class being the Top of the Curve and compose the Majority of the Population. Lower and Highest Class compose of a Minority of the Population, but obviously not exact shares of Wealth. Of course it is only a guideline and can not be achieved exactly in a Perfect Bell, in fact the Wealth Spread can vary dramatically and still be a General Bell Curve.

The great beauty of Stock and other Markets is that you don't need an extreme Wealthy Class to start a Business of great complexity, such as a Boeing, Microsoft, Intel, etc. Hell, these Companies didn't start as Mega-Corps or with huge sums of Cash. You just need enough People with enough Wealth that they can take some Risk with it. Personally I think there should be more exposure to such Markets in Elementary and other levels of Education, to familiarize the general Population with the concepts of Risk minimization through Diversification and other such concepts.

That said, those Markets really do need both Increased Regulation and Decreased Regulation. Increased on the Public/Legal side, to ensure integrity so that Investors can be confident in the Accounting and Reports on various potential Investments. Decreased Regulation on the Private/Retail side, there's no reason why People need a Middleman anymore, they should be able to Buy/Sell Investments like they were buying a Burger.

 

[MJinZ]

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.

lol ur dumb

 

[Phokus]

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.

God damn you're retarded. "Rich and Poor" (or "King and Serf") is a function of supply/demand of labor and those who hold the capital and those who do not. Oh wait, these are ivory tower concepts so obviously i'm talking to a brick wall here.

Also, for maximum irony, see sig

 

[BoberFett]

God damn you're retarded. "Rich and Poor" (or "King and Serf") is a function of supply/demand of labor and those who hold the capital and those who do not. Oh wait, these are ivory tower concepts so obviously i'm talking to a brick wall here.

Also, for maximum irony, see sig

You never fail to amuse me, monkey-boy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

X axis is Population, Y Axis Wealth share. Middle Class being the Top of the Curve and compose the Majority of the Population. Lower and Highest Class compose of a Minority of the Population, but obviously not exact shares of Wealth. Of course it is only a guideline and can not be achieved exactly in a Perfect Bell, in fact the Wealth Spread can vary dramatically and still be a General Bell Curve.

Bobber is correct - sandorski is an economic twit and doesn't understand his "ideal" isn't a possibility as the dirt poor would have the same "share" as the ultra rich. It just doesn't work.

 

[Phokus]

You never fail to amuse me, monkey-boy.

This coming from the tremendous retard who THINKS he's gaming unemployment.

 

[sandorski]

Bobber is correct - sandorski is an economic twit and doesn't understand his "ideal" isn't a possibility as the dirt poor would have the same "share" as the ultra rich. It just doesn't work.

I may have reversed the Axis. My brain is to close to waking at this moment.

edit- Yes, I did state the axis incorrectly. ah well, should be pretty obvious what I meant.

 

[shira]

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???

It's astonishing that you think your hypothetical is analogous to mine. I presented a situation that happens every day: Wealth trumping equal opportunity for equally-deserving individuals. And you respond by comparing that to a situation where there are two clearly UN-equally-deserving individuals.

But why should I be surprised? You righties really cannot see the world as it is. You're so blinded by your ideology that fantasy becomes reality.

When you're prepared to discuss the real world, get back to me. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[piasabird]

I dont have a 47" TV or an I-Phone. Guess I am really poor. I work for a living.

 

[spacejamz]

It's astonishing that you think your hypothetical is analogous to mine. I presented a situation that happens every day: Wealth trumping equal opportunity for equally-deserving individuals. And you respond by comparing that to a situation where there are two clearly UN-equally-deserving individuals.

But why should I be surprised? You righties really cannot see the world as it is. You're so blinded by your ideology that fantasy becomes reality.

When you're prepared to discuss the real world, get back to me. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time.

uh...please explain how that situation I described is not reality??

so now you are proposing that only 'deserving' individuals get equality?? who decides who is deserving? you???

 

[piasabird]

Bill Gates started Microsoft with 2 people working in a hotel room.

If you mention something stupid like paying more in FICA than Income tax, then remember these people are paying a lot in sales tax, especially if you live in a liberal state. Then there is the Federal and State Gas Tax. Property Tax can be high in some places too. Then there is veh Registration and Sales Tax. People pay lots of taxes all the time like Liquer and Cigarette tax.

100 years ago people did not have air conditioning, drive cars, or watch TV. So nothing from that Era is really valid now.

 

[spacejamz]

I dont have a 47" TV or an I-Phone. Guess I am really poor. I work for a living.

are you complaining that rich aren't taxed enough also??

 

[Phokus]

are you complaining that rich aren't taxed enough also??

A lot of them aren't. Top 400 had an effective tax rate of 16% thanks to the capital gains tax cut and that's how a lot of them make their money.

 

[shira]

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.

I didn't ask you if the non-wealthy get opportunities or how often they get opportunities. I asked you if you really think that the non-wealthy get EQUAL opportunities, which is what you're trumpeting about.

The answer is that of COURSE the non-wealthy don't receive the same opportunities as the wealthy. Whether it's daddy giving $1 million to Harvard and Junior therefore getting a berth an equally-qualified (or even more qualified) middle-class applicant wouldn't receive OR getting the benefits of family connections in the business world, the wealthy have a leg up on the non-wealthy. It's simply ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

And we're increasingly moving toward a system where we take LESS from the wealthy and take MORE from the non-wealthy. How can that be? Well, as the income-tax base goes down, user fees go up. Benefits go down. Tuitions for public colleges and universities increase. Sales taxes go up.

It's death by a thousand cuts, directed at the non-wealthy.

And if the righties get their way, the system will become even more stratified. Who do you think benefits when estates worth $10 million, $100 million, $1 billion are all immune to estate tax? Oh, right, those unfortunate 37 "family farmers" and "small business owners" who (sniffle) will be forced to sell the business to pay the tax - yeah, I'm sure that's who the right is really concerned about. Lowering the capital gains rate to 10%. Who do you think benefits from that? Keeping the income tax rate at 15% for hedge fund managers. All while the middle class pays 25%+ on their own income.

The right is owned by the wealthy, and it has nothing to do with equal opportunity for everyone.

 

[spacejamz]

A lot of them aren't. Top 400 had an effective tax rate of 16% thanks to the capital gains tax cut and that's how a lot of them make their money.

It is pretty sad to see that you are so blinded by your hatred of the rich...

Why don't you see the other side of the coin that alot of people aren't rich because they are too lazy or not smart enough to make the right decisions to better themselves.

Instead of trying to improve their own quality of life by taking personal responsibility, they complain that their life isn't fair and want the government to take money from the rich and give it to them so they don't have to work for it. I would be willing to bet that once they move from the bottom 50% that don't pay federal taxes to the top 50% that do pay, they will change their tunes pretty quickly...Funny how that works...

 

[Phokus]

It is pretty sad to see that you are so blinded by your hatred of the rich...

Why don't you see the other side of the coin that alot of people aren't rich because they are too lazy or not smart enough to make the right decisions to better themselves.

Instead of trying to improve their own quality of life by taking personal responsibility, they complain that their life isn't fair and want the government to take money from the rich and give it to them so they don't have to work for it. I would be willing to bet that once they move from the bottom 50% that don't pay federal taxes to the top 50% that do pay, they will change their tunes pretty quickly...Funny how that works...

Well, for one thing, i'm not jealous of the rich, I have a pretty comfortable life yet i don't aspire to be a mega millionaire. But you know what? A lot of the rich actually agree with these sentiments. Someone like LK who works on wall street probably making mid to high 6 figures, or Warren Buffet and his ultra rich buddies don't think the rich are being taxed enough. Not everyone is a greedy fucking douchebag like your typical republican, some people actually like doing what they do and the money is a nice side benefit, but at the same time they don't want the country turning into a generational aristocracy. They also think fucking over the middle class is a bad thing for this country. Funny how that works.

 

[MJinZ]

It is pretty sad to see that you are so blinded by your hatred of the rich...

Why don't you see the other side of the coin that alot of people aren't rich because they are too lazy or not smart enough to make the right decisions to better themselves.

Instead of trying to improve their own quality of life by taking personal responsibility, they complain that their life isn't fair and want the government to take money from the rich and give it to them so they don't have to work for it. I would be willing to bet that once they move from the bottom 50% that don't pay federal taxes to the top 50% that do pay, they will change their tunes pretty quickly...Funny how that works...

Not everyone is a greedy fucking douchebag like you think (and that you probably are).

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc... their money goes to good in the world, not more Bugattis.

If/When I ever get to upper class levels where my taxes are higher than most people make, I won't be complaining because I actually recognize that no person is able to make that kind of money as an island. You stand on the shoulders of giants before you and others just like you.

That's the difference between rich Democrats and rich Republicans. Essentially, it boils down to how much you are a fucking douchebag.

 

[spacejamz]

Not everyone is a greedy fucking douchebag like you think (and that you probably are).

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc... their money goes to good in the world, not more Bugattis.

If/When I ever get to upper class levels where my taxes are higher than most people make, I won't be complaining because I actually recognize that no person is able to make that kind of money as an island. You stand on the shoulders of giants before you and others just like you.

That's the difference between rich Democrats and rich Republicans. Essentially, it boils down to how much you are a fucking douchebag.

Way to totally avoid what I posted...the only democrats that are rich are in office...how can be democrat become rich if they are put their money where their mouth is by helping those poor souls in the da hood that are less fortunuate? you know, the ones driving Escalades with 22" wheels but cannot afford diapers or formula??

 

[Ronstang]

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

That is not possible. Do you people even think? The average person works a job, they don't have people working for them. Your idea of utopia could never happen.

 

[boomerang]

That is not possible. Do you people even think? The average person works a job, they don't have people working for them. Your idea of utopia could never happen.

Hey, don't rock their world. They were raised to think that the Socialist/Communist dream is entirely possible. That the only reason it's not worked so far is that the right people haven't orchestrated it.

Most people grow out of this shit but hanging out here makes me wonder if that's going to happen with this latest bunch. Too many here may never hold a job and have to learn to support themselves.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I thought Bill Gates was the debil and Microsoft is an ebil monopoly.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Perfectly said. Personally I do not think there is an ideal distribution of wealth society; I think it is much more important to concentrate on building a society where one's rewards are commiserate with one's hard work, wise decisions, and gifts.

Bobber - how about a Bell curve with a really steep slope?

 

[MJinZ]

Hey, don't rock their world. They were raised to think that the Socialist/Communist dream is entirely possible. That the only reason it's not worked so far is that the right people haven't orchestrated it.

Most people grow out of this shit but hanging out here makes me wonder if that's going to happen with this latest bunch. Too many here may never hold a job and have to learn to support themselves.

LOL, I probably pay more in taxes every year than what you make already. The difference is, people like us who can think independently realize when brainwashing occurs and when the "system" itself is flawed. Capitalism is just as flawed as Communism, in its own separate ways.

However, it doesn't take a genius to realize that Capitalism is more backward than Communism. Socialism doesn't work because HUMANS are not good enough for it. We do not possess the noble traits to make it work. Capitalism is PERFECT for what we are currently - self interested, greedy, competitive, and compassionless.

It depends on what you envision the potential for humans to be really. Capitalism supporters are happy with neanderthalic tendencies of humans, others realize (or hope) that humans are capable of a little bit more of an advanced philosophy than kill or be killed.

Evidently, based on most these forums, most humans clearly not even at an intellectual stage where that can even be reasonably discussed.