2% own more than half of all household wealth worldwide.

[fitzov]

Take the poll. Discuss topics of wealth redistribution, greed, necessities for functionality, whatever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

 

[miketheidiot]

I'm not in favor of active redistribution, (seizures and nationalizing, etc) but favor tax and other policies to help close this gap. Additionally, as underdeveloped areas develop this should ease signifigantly.

I think this was worth copying:

The study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.

 

[Craig234]

Exactly, 'redistributed' is a code word for propganda to discourage good policies. When the same thing is done in th eother direction, they use nice words.

It's a terrible situation. All the legitimate benefits of unequal wealth should be maintained - the ideas of incenting productive activity - but the extremes in excess of that, that are harmful to society which we have now, should be addressed by government policy while they still can. Already, the wealth is crippling governments' power to restrict it.

This is done with a variety of means, from simply multi-nationals able to make elected governments compete with lower taxation and regulations, to the clauses in free trade agreements making governments liable to corporations for the costs of regulations, and many other ways.

 

[Thump553]

A (strong?) argument can be made that the persons clever/smart/ruthless enough to earn billions should be entitled to a disproportionate voice in how society spends that wealth. In other words, guys like Bill Gates benefit society as a whole by directing where society invests a big chunk of it's weatlth.

To me, that argument falls apart once you get into vast sums of inherited wealth. Too many of the children/grandchildren of the wealthy are Paris Hilton types, in my view.

 

[Craig234]

I agree, Thump, with the caveats that 'there are limits'. At some point, your having a nice big house and new car and ten vacation homes is fine but you get to the point later that the concentrated wealth harms society's larger interests, economically keeps most citizens down, and threatens the healthy functioning of democracy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Thump553
A (strong?) argument can be made that the persons clever/smart/ruthless enough to earn billions should be entitled to a disproportionate voice in how society spends that wealth. In other words, guys like Bill Gates benefit society as a whole by directing where society invests a big chunk of it's weatlth.

To me, that argument falls apart once you get into vast sums of inherited wealth. Too many of the children/grandchildren of the wealthy are Paris Hilton types, in my view.

Actually you are incorrect on this one. If you take a look through the Forbes 400 (ALL of which now have a net worth of $1B or more) 75% are not inherited. All except the Mars family and the Walton family are founders. Of the kids, only one of the Mars family and one of the Walton family does not actively work in the business. Paris gives the rich a bad name, but surely doesnt represent the majority.

1 William Henry Gates III 53.0 50 Medina, WA Microsoft
2 Warren Edward Buffett 46.0 76 Omaha, NE Berkshire Hathaway
3 Sheldon Adelson 20.5 73 Las Vegas, NV casinos, hotels
4 Lawrence Joseph Ellison 19.5 62 Redwood City, CA Oracle
5 Paul Gardner Allen 16.0 53 Seattle, WA Microsoft, investments
6 Jim C Walton 15.7 58 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
7 Christy Walton & family 15.6 51 Jackson, WY Wal-Mart inheritance
7 S Robson Walton 15.6 62 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
9 Michael Dell 15.5 41 Austin, TX Dell
9 Alice L Walton 15.5 57 Fort Worth, TX Wal-Mart
11 Helen R Walton 15.3 86 Bentonville, AR Wal-Mart
12 Sergey Brin 14.1 33 Palo Alto, CA Google
13 Larry E Page 14.0 33 San Francisco, CA Google
14 Jack Crawford Taylor & family 13.9 84 St Louis, MO Enterprise Rent-A-Car
15 Steven Anthony Ballmer 13.6 50 Bellevue, WA Microsoft
16 Abigail Johnson 13.0 44 Boston, MA Fidelity
17 Barbara Cox Anthony 12.6 83 Honolulu, HI Cox Enterprises
17 Anne Cox Chambers 12.6 86 Atlanta, GA Cox Enterprises
19 Charles De Ganahl Koch 12.0 70 Wichita, KS oil, commodities
19 David Hamilton Koch 12.0 66 New York, NY oil, commodities
21 Forrest Edward Mars Jr 10.5 75 McLean, VA candy
21 Jacqueline Mars 10.5 67 Bedminster, NJ candy
21 John Franklyn Mars 10.5 70 Arlington, VA candy
24 Carl Icahn 9.7 70 New York, NY leveraged buyouts
25 John Werner Kluge 9.1 92 Palm Beach, FL Metromedia

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz...00_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

 

[Craig234]

blackangst, the 'good' numbers on that are helped by the estate tax the republicans want to repeal, and transfer the tax burden from the top 1% mostly, to the public.

 

[techs]

Only 50 percent? I guess the top 2 percent just aren't trying hard enough.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Lets kill the 2% and take their stuff!

 

[imported_Shivetya]

comparing different regions of the world is non sense in this regard.

simply put wealth in one part of the world is not remotely the same as others.

It is simply sensationalism, it looks good but anyone who thinks sees right through these storeis.

Look, wealth is party the result of productivity, the nations with the greatest wealth also have the greatest productivity per man hour. Can you encourage productivity in other areas if you just GIVE them the results without the work ? no you cannot.

A recent report in Europe pointed out that the poor in Mississippi enjoy larger homes, more "luxury items", and similar than many european countries middle class!!!! Where's the justice? See its all relative.

Plus if you read the details you notice how they had to extrapolate? These is a buzzword for "fudging the figures" ... in other words you extrapolate, manipulate, to get a desired result.

Redistribution never works, it marginalizes those who receive it and aggravates those who it is taken from.

Also, many who complain about the "disparity" always throw out the extreme examples to make their point so to discourage comparison. (ie, Paris)

Recently Hollywood is out to bash Starbucks. Apparently Starbucks is taking advantage of the poor Ethiopian farmers for coffee beans. No mention is giving that the money spent by Starbucks is more than double the incomes they would receive otherwise or that there is much done by the locals in order to be a provider to Starbucks.

Take it to our side of the ocean. Wal-mart, the big boogey man. Did you know a Democrat was recently railing against them and having a book signing at a nearby Barnes and Noble talking about how bad Wal-Mart pays its employees? Guess what, their wages at Wal-Mart for just starting out where 10-15% more than Barnes and Noble employees and their benefits better.

Wealth is there for the taking. The US wasn't always wealthy but the politics of the time and the ethich were there to make this country great. We should not be guilty of it any more than other countries have been of their gains.

Finally, most wealth starved countries are because of local politics. Are we saying its okay to intefere then? Are we?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Lets kill the 2% and take their stuff!

Nice going - misrepresent the left, and avoid any real discussion of the problems caused by the right.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
The US wasn't always wealthy but the politics of the time and the ethich were there to make this country great. We should not be guilty of it any more than other countries have been of their gains.

Just to pick this out of a number of things -

A century ago, the US had robber barons, and an inflation-adjusted average wage of $10,000 - in other words, widespread poverty and a few wealthy.

The progressive movement, with FDR later, fixed a lot of this; with unions and the law, they greatly improved the situation for most Americans, using the private sector.

The US benefitted from many things, including a wealth of natural resources; the role of the liberal political acts should not be forgotten in its key role in the middle class.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because the gap between the rich and the poor grows and grows surely the better answer is just to wait for the 98% to starve, no?

 

[blackangst1]

Im not sure what the problem is here. Is it the have's and the have nots? Why does everything have to be equal? As previously mentioned, reward those who dont work hard and punish those that do? Here's the problem, and I would love to hear an alternative other than these two examples...because they wont work:

1. Put either an income cap or a net worth cap on all Americans. The problem with that is you stifle creativity, and ultimately, cause more corruption by promoting hiding of assets, moving assets overseas, etc.

2. Taxation. Again, bad idea. The ultra rich pay a huge amount of taxes already (just look at IRS numbers of collected taxes). OK lets say you raise taxes. That creates more income for the government, which in turn would create more beauracracy, and increase the size of government. The argument is made "Hey...tax them 75% and they STILL have hundreds of millions of dollars!". Yes thats true...but...it's THEIR hundreds of millions, not yours or the governments.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Because the gap between the rich and the poor grows and grows surely the better answer is just to wait for the 98% to starve, no?

And your suggestion would be what?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Lets kill the 2% and take their stuff!

Nice going - misrepresent the left, and avoid any real discussion of the problems caused by the right.

hmmm, so none of this is the fault of the rich democrats like Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, Paul Allen, Bill Gates?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not sure what the problem is here. Is it the have's and the have nots? Why does everything have to be equal? As previously mentioned, reward those who dont work hard and punish those that do? Here's the problem, and I would love to hear an alternative other than these two examples...because they wont work:

1. Put either an income cap or a net worth cap on all Americans. The problem with that is you stifle creativity, and ultimately, cause more corruption by promoting hiding of assets, moving assets overseas, etc.

2. Taxation. Again, bad idea. The ultra rich pay a huge amount of taxes already (just look at IRS numbers of collected taxes). OK lets say you raise taxes. That creates more income for the government, which in turn would create more beauracracy, and increase the size of government. The argument is made "Hey...tax them 75% and they STILL have hundreds of millions of dollars!". Yes thats true...but...it's THEIR hundreds of millions, not yours or the governments.

The lies are huge in this argument, as if hard work is the difference. Who works harder, Warren Buffet or the stockbroker who executes his trades?

NO ONE IS SAYING EQUALITY, NO ONE. The issue is the *extreme* gaps.

ENOUGH of the lies for debate.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im not sure what the problem is here. Is it the have's and the have nots? Why does everything have to be equal? As previously mentioned, reward those who dont work hard and punish those that do? Here's the problem, and I would love to hear an alternative other than these two examples...because they wont work:

1. Put either an income cap or a net worth cap on all Americans. The problem with that is you stifle creativity, and ultimately, cause more corruption by promoting hiding of assets, moving assets overseas, etc.

2. Taxation. Again, bad idea. The ultra rich pay a huge amount of taxes already (just look at IRS numbers of collected taxes). OK lets say you raise taxes. That creates more income for the government, which in turn would create more beauracracy, and increase the size of government. The argument is made "Hey...tax them 75% and they STILL have hundreds of millions of dollars!". Yes thats true...but...it's THEIR hundreds of millions, not yours or the governments.

The lies are huge in this argument, as if hard work is the difference. Who works harder, Warren Buffet or the stockbroker who executes his trades?

What lies have I written? Come on, tell me.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You DO understand he manages his own account right? So in this case, Warren does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO ONE IS SAYING EQUALITY, NO ONE. The issue is the *extreme* gaps.

ENOUGH of the lies for debate.

So tell me then. Whats the solution? Quit your finger pointing and offer possible solutions.

 

[Vic]

My issue is with those who see material wealth as though it were the only standard in life to measure one person against another. Many people are poor and happy, many are rich and still unhappy. Life is unfair, and that is not right, but we have as yet found no way to make life fair (for lack of a better way of saying this) fairly. In the end, it comes down to the individual.
Personally, I have the deepest respect for those who find peace and happiness in poverty, and none at all for those who cannot find happiness even with riches. I have great respect for those who build their lives from nothing into something, and none for those whose self-hatred drives them to tear down everyone else's somethings because they will build nothing for themselves.
If, when you're lying on your deathbed (as we all will someday), you cannot look back on your life with some level of contentment and self-respect, then I pity you.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic
My issue is with those who see material wealth as though it were the only standard in life to measure one person against another. Many people are poor and happy, many are rich and still unhappy. Life is unfair, and that is not right, but we have as yet found no way to make life fair (for lack of a better way of saying this) fairly. In the end, it comes down to the individual.
Personally, I have the deepest respect for those who find peace and happiness in poverty, and none at all for those who cannot find happiness even with riches. I have great respect for those who build their lives from nothing into something, and none for those whose self-hatred drives them to tear down everyone else's somethings because they will build nothing for themselves.
If, when you're lying on your deathbed (as we all will someday), you cannot look back on your life with some level of contentment and self-respect, then I pity you.

Well said, sir. :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Yes wealth distribution isnt equal. It never has and never will. Life also isnt fair, never has never will.

The only thing people can and should do is continue to live their lives to the best they can. Wallowing over someone else's success's or failures will get you nowhere.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes wealth distribution isnt equal. It never has and never will. Life also isnt fair, never has never will.

The only thing people can and should do is continue to live their lives to the best they can. Wallowing over someone else's success's or failures will get you nowhere.

That "wallowing" is a way of living your life vicariously. Which is how many people live their lives. Look around you, diehard sports fans, entertainment tabloid readers, partisan fanbois, etc. People who put a label on themselves so they can pretend that they are what they really aren't (because you are what you do, not what you say).
It gets really wacky, psychologically, in the political scheme though, because people who hate always begin by hating themselves, and so their hate is always a reflection that self-hatred. So trust fund rich kids protest about the fate of the poor because they hate their wealthy parents, while alcoholics and pedophiles demand "law and order" and a "return to family values," etc., followed by a long wave of exploiting hangers-on, and so forth.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

[fitzov]

Yes wealth distribution isnt equal.

Wealth distribution not being equal isn't the same as wealth being disproportionate. In other words, it's possible to have some with more money than others while wealth is proportionate (to something). At least, that is my intention with the poll. I didn't think people would confuse the difference.

 

[Moonbeam]

I heard somebody say something like 'We live is a system in which we are all born equal to become as rapidly unequal as possible.'.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I heard somebody say something like 'We live is a system in which we are all born equal to become as rapidly unequal as possible.'.

Equality in how we, as human beings, treat each other. We cannot account for nor control the inequalities that nature bestows.