jhay78;510541 wrote:I believe in wealth distribution- by means of free market exchanges of goods, services, wages, etc. taking place among free people operating in their own self-interest. I also believe in charity as a form of distribution- again taking place when free people choose to help their fellow man.

+1

Again, I shouldn't have used the phrase "wealth distribution" as this has a specific connotation and its assumed that I mean that Americans would support "A powerful federal government forcibly taking wealth earned freely through mutually agreed upon transactions, and redistributing it to others."

I didn't mean that.

Obviously here we have Jhay, FFT, Majorspark (and I apologize I haven't replied to your post yet; I will try to give a worthy reply to your ample post), etc. who say that "yes, I agree that wealth should be distributed and redistributed and redistributed, freely, through free actors in a free market."

There are multiple ways wealth and assets may be distributed to flesh and blood human beings;

Let's list some.

1. A perfectly moral king distributing resources amongst the populace

2. An Alien Race coming to earth and confiscating our property and redistributing as they see fit.

3. A completely unfettered market system

etc.

These are all methods of distributing scarce resources....Let's not focus on the method right now....that's what I was alluding to Majorspark; at least for a second.

What it means to have "wealth" in a basic since is to have Assets > Liabilities. As FFT points out, many folks we'd consider to be successful, or at least on their way, including himself, have more liabilities than assets.

The study reflects though, that the top 20% of income earners own 80% of all of the nation's wealth after liabilities. FFT may not have more assets > liabilities, but he's also in the top 20% of income earners.

The ideal reflects that people of all kinds of backgrounds believe, in a normative sense, (whatever the method of distribution; pay no care to that), that people in the bottom 20% of income earners ought to have somewhere around 10% of the assets after liabilities.

This is not to say that they should be anywhere close to rich....as BGFalcons suggests....not even people in the bottom 20% of income earners think that there should not be "poorer" Americans...but that they ought to have some of the assets after liabilities.

In a normative sense, people of all backgrounds in this study, have expressed, that the method of distribution (whatever it may be), ought to be one that aims at that ideal wherein all classes of income earners have some assets after liabilities....even conservatives who understand economics better than liberals.

It is suggested in some way, that this is a moral good...and end to be achieved.

The method of distribution is where disagreement, it seems really lies;

1. Majorspark and others suggest that the distribution should not be in the hands of corruptible men in a central government far away from their constituents and probably not even state governments...

2. Cleveland_Buck and Footwedge and Iggeypride (I think) have hinted at government disallowing concentrations of wealth in the private sector to create cartels in certain markets that disallows true competition.

3. HitsRUs, Believer, Quakeroats, Writerbuckeye, have suggested that incessant regulation, taxation, government, etc. burdens producers in such a way that they must pass on burdens to consumers so that producers may maintain a justifiably earned profit...etc.

The reality is...whatever system we have...some call it a regulated capitalist system, others a corporate welfare scheme; the end result is that we have the top 20% of income earners owning >80% of the assets after liabilities....

I'm not sure what figures the study used but if it's Total U.S. Assets over Total U.S. Debt; There's something like 16 Trillion in wealth left...

The top 20% of income earners own 12.8 of that trillion...the bottom 40% of income earners are negative.

If we think these ideals expressed in the study to be a moral good or aim...as is the goal of Mr. Rawl's thought experiment...and we are to try and achieve our moral good...

And it seems that our current system (whatever it is), hasn't brought us close to this moral good....then we ought to try something new and try to achieve this moral world wherein all brackets of income earners have some assets after liabilities.

And if that's the reality, that we think a world to closer to this ideal to be desirable, then we must deal with the reality that we live in a society far away from our moral ideal and that we have a certain income earning group with a very real property claim to a significant portion our assets that must be dealt with in some way to achieve our ideal.


Or maybe people just didn't understand the study and they don't care if say, 1 person had 100% of all the wealth as long as he acquired it through free transactions in a free market...(which it's not clear that we have a free enough market).

I know my posts often don't make sense apparently, (Manhattan Buckeye at least seems to think so) and I wrote this very quickly and will try to come back later to clarify.

Ultimately I guess...we may not agree on what should be done about it or what the solution is, but do we agree that the top 20% of income earners owning >80% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% having negative is bad?

Or, do we think that, so long as that disproportionate amount was achieved freely and within the law, even if the system is not perfect, was done so within the system, the result is just and even if only 1% had it all, as long is it was achieved this way, it's justified?

jmog;510473 wrote:Well lets see...

That table says that in most Amercan's "ideal" society..

The top 20% have about 30% of the money.

The 2nd 20% controls about 20% of the money.

The 3rd 20% controls about 20% of the money.

The 4th 20% controls about 15% of the money.

The last 20% (poor) controls about 15% of the money.

That is EITHER asking for a perfect socialist society (each getting equal portions), or is asking for many less rich and many more poor people than we have now so that the poor come "equal" by numbers alone.

So please tell me, which do the people want, a completely ideal socialist economy, or far fewer rich and far more poor?

Both are bad ideas.

Still waiting to hear what you all think these people are really asking for...a 100% socialistic economy, or many MANY more poor people.

1 other thing to keep in mind.

The highest 20%, actually starts at about $88k/year for a total household income. That is NOT even close to rich for a family. If they are single making that much they are doing well, but a family at $88k is middle class.

I laugh at the fact that technically I am in the highest "20%" that "owns" 80% of the nation's wealth. I'm barely in that 20%, but you get the idea. Do I live better than someone making $20k? Yes, but I still live paycheck to paycheck having a wife and 3 young kids.

I am not sure what the optimal levels are and I don't think government can/should ration it out, but last time America saw the level of wealth concentration in the top couple percent we do now was in the late 1920's at the time of the Depression.

Can it really be coincidence that the 2 largest financial collapses in the past century have been at the points in which the highest amount of wealth was concentrated in the fewest amount of hands?

We had a 40+ year run in the post war era when the wealth distribution curve in the country was the flattest that saw a period of great growth and financial stability.

Statistically the past 15-20 years has seen greater wealth consolidation and the corresponding economic bubbles that seem to go with it. Since the late 80's we have been in a boom/bust economy that is one bubble after another.

I am not a socialist, and I don't believe in central planning.

However, I do have eyes and everything I see when I look at the numbers tells me that the more the countries wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands the more instability we seem to have economically. That is not and hasn't been good for America. As I said above, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that if the trajectory we are on continues it will be increasingly more difficult to ever pull this economy out of the ditch it is in.

I'm not sure if that just because someone was randomly asked what the 'ideal' is and putting a number on it....that they feel the current 'distribution' is morally bad. Unless you really study it and realize why the distribution is the way it is, assigning a number to what it "ought" to be really is meaningless. At least within the small group that I had a discussion with, there were similar answers to the poll, but when informed of the difference, none was moved to suggest that anything "ought" to be done to fix the mix, and the general consenses was that things are fine the way they are.

I'm not sure age doesn't have a lot to do with wealth distribution also. Young people incur debt with relatively low earnings, they spend on kids....as stated by jmog...paycheck to paycheck. As they get older they pay off their debts, the kids grow up, and they earn more. I know this was the case for meas we started from scratch. In the early years we bought a house and invested in the business buying equipment and facilities. I worked long hours for not much take home. As the years went by, and the business grew, debts were paid and we now own almost evrything. Two of the 3 kids are thru college. I earn a lot more.
Is this system morally bad? I don't think you can infer that.

IggyPride00;511711 wrote:However, I do have eyes and everything I see when I look at the numbers tells me that the more the countries wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands the more instability we seem to have economically. That is not and hasn't been good for America. As I said above, I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that if the trajectory we are on continues it will be increasingly more difficult to ever pull this economy out of the ditch it is in.

I'm going to agree with you, but expand your point.

Having the wealth concentrated in a shrinking number of hands has its difficulties. So...instead of trying to re-distribute (i.e. steal) the wealth currently in the economy, let's create more hands. The argument from the left/Keynesians is that there is only 1 pie and the wealth remains constant. This is a fallacy. We need to create either a larger pie or create more pies. Wealth is NOT static, but dynamic. The current regime is hell-bent on taking the wealth away from the creators of it and give it to those that they believe deserve it more. By giving it to them, the current elitists believe they will spend it more wisely, not "sit" on their newly acquired wealth, and thus spur the economy into growth and expansion. This is a failure and we are destined for 9%+ unemployment, a dollar worth less and less every day, and a skyrocketing debt. We must find a way to create more pies (more wealth), create economic activity, and let the American spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation take over. Unfortunately, the current regime in DC is totally against this plan, as they believe they are the chosen ones and are smarter than anyone else and know what's best for all of us.

The people of our nation themselves realize that the income distribution is skewed. Of course at this site we
have the pleasure to read what those that have feel about income distribution. Here we can read the opinions of the greedy and selfish want and the options that they offer. Decentralization is a joke. When they were asked to step up during the Great Depression, they failed. Individuals, charities and the states lacked the resources and more importantly the will to provide the aid needed.

^^^ Greed, eh? You mean the greed of public unions that demand raises and increased benefits while those that finance these things are themselves struggling to make ends meet and haven't seen a raise in years? You mean the greed of politicians that sell their votes on legislation as long as they get their proper kickback? You mean the greed for total power shown by Obama in his unyielding quest to control every aspect of our lives? You mean the greed of the federal bureacracy to not cut one dime out of their bloated budgets because they all provide "essential" services?

Something tells me you feel these aren't examples of greed, but examples of need in order for the central government to become the most powerful source of granting "freedoms" and "equality" for Americans. Your system has been tried before and failed miseraby. But history has a way of repeating itself as those that fail to understand it are bound to repeat it.

BGFalcons82;514180 wrote:^^^ Greed, eh? You mean the greed of public unions that demand raises and increased benefits while those that finance these things are themselves struggling to make ends meet and haven't seen a raise in years? You mean the greed of politicians that sell their votes on legislation as long as they get their proper kickback? You mean the greed for total power shown by Obama in his unyielding quest to control every aspect of our lives? You mean the greed of the federal bureacracy to not cut one dime out of their bloated budgets because they all provide "essential" services?

Something tells me you feel these aren't examples of greed, but examples of need in order for the central government to become the most powerful source of granting "freedoms" and "equality" for Americans. Your system has been tried before and failed miseraby. But history has a way of repeating itself as those that fail to understand it are bound to repeat it.

The Obama administration has not made any of the demands you claim. Of you and your chorts have no problem making those instantiated claims. Why not, he is not white. You would give Bush a pass on any of those claims.. You had 8 years and we heard none of them. Your racist system has been tried and failed. It was the Confederacy and it fellow into the abyss it so richly deserved.

Everyone that disagrees with isadore is a rascist, military hating, terrorist loving, godless bastard. Clearly.

^^^^
what is obvious from your previisous statements is that you hate the miltiary and are sypmathetic to the people who kill them.

What is obvious from every post you make is that you don't ever actually have a debate on the merits of someone's opinion but rather resort to trying to villify them or somehow make them seem like a bad person so that you don't actually have to come up with a logical retort.

Actually come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you make a post in agreement with another poster.

I Wear Pants;514373 wrote:What is obvious from every post you make is that you don't ever actually have a debate on the merits of someone's opinion but rather resort to trying to villify them or somehow make them seem like a bad person so that you don't actually have to come up with a logical retort.

Actually come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen you make a post in agreement with another poster.

Why would I ever make a post that agrees with the opinion that denigrating the family of dead servicemen is permissible. You have consistently expressed support for the killer of Americans. Why would any patriotic American express any opinion reflective of your denigration of the loss of these familiess.

BGFalcons82;514039 wrote: The current regime is hell-bent on taking the wealth away from the creators of it and give it to those that they believe deserve it more. .

And the evidence of this is what? Even if the tax cuts are allowed to expired the rates are still below the ones that existed under Ronnie Reagan. You are so full of baloney.

isadore;514114 wrote:The people of our nation themselves realize that the income distribution is skewed. Of course at this site we
have the pleasure to read what those that have feel about income distribution. Here we can read the opinions of the greedy and selfish want and the options that they offer. Decentralization is a joke. When they were asked to step up during the Great Depression, they failed. Individuals, charities and the states lacked the resources and more importantly the will to provide the aid needed.

The federal government also lacks the resources. The federal government has to rob Peter to pay Paul and methodically and increasingly write bad checks and they still cannot provide everything that it has and will promise. And, in doing so, has failed Americans at large by making cheap and purposely vague promises. Government (federal) has no set structure that says that monies gather for healthcare will only be spent on healthcare, monies collected for infrastructure will only be spent on infrastructure, taxes collected for education will only spent on schools, etc.
So here we are, stuck with a federal government that "lacks the resources and more importantly the will to provide" the fulfillment behind all of it's promises.

So now what?

^^^^^
Now what? We have to go with precedent. When our economy had its greatest failure, it was not individuals, charities or state government that saved our people from starvation and anarchy, it was the federal government. Well it is too bad that Americans can not have the wealth distribution they want. The greedy and selfish so represented on this site have prevented it with the false charge of “class war.” The rich have been waging successful class war against the middle class in this country for several administrations. Hopefully this administration will follow through with its stated position of coming closer to having the rich pay theiro fair share of taxes.

Bigdogg;514471 wrote:And the evidence of this is what? Even if the tax cuts are allowed to expired the rates are still below the ones that existed under Ronnie Reagan. You are so full of baloney.

Ummm....well......uhhh......not to be too flippant, but WTH.....because Obama SAID IT.

isadore;514532 wrote:^^^^^
Now what? We have to go with precedent. When our economy had its greatest failure, it was not individuals, charities or state government that saved our people from starvation and anarchy, it was the federal government. Well it is too bad that Americans can not have the wealth distribution they want. The greedy and selfish so represented on this site have prevented it with the false charge of “class war.” The rich have been waging successful class war against the middle class in this country for several administrations.

It's too bad that Americans can not have the wealth distribution they want because the government cannot handle it. It is inept, inefficient, an it certainly cannot handle the greed and selfish nature of its own willful petulance.

CenterBHSFan;514540 wrote:It's too bad that Americans can not have the wealth distribution they want because the government cannot handle it. It is inept, inefficient, an it certainly cannot handle the greed and selfish nature of its own willful petulance.

the government has a stated action that will begin to right the maldistribution. Let the tax cut to the wealthy given by a previous pro riich administration end. Hopefully they will follow through with it.

isadore;514544 wrote:the government has a stated action that will begin to right the maldistribution. Let the tax cut to the wealthy given by a previous pro riich administration end. Hopefully they will follow through with it.

And what if they don't?

it will bring temporary happiness to the greedy and the selfish. But in the long run the government will act to address the problem of maldistribution of wealth, to the discomfort of most of the contributors to this thread.

^^^you use such loaded words, and then dismiss the charge of 'class warfare.' How disingenuous. The first thing you need to do is to acknowledge that all rich people are not greedy and selfish, lest all the less fortunate people be characterized as lazy and irresponsible. Neither is the case.

isadore;514583 wrote:it will bring temporary happiness to the greedy and the selfish. But in the long run the government will act to address the problem of maldistribution of wealth, to the discomfort of most of the contributors to this thread.

How much do you think the government should be allowed to take in the hopes that there will be no more "unfortunate" people left in America?