How to distribute wealth equally?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Saint, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,303
    Top ten richest men almost have 50% of the total wealth of middle class people.
    This is not balanced.
    How to distribute wealth equally?

    You do not need billions to survive, do you?
    So, why accumulate billions of wealth? Greedy?

    Can we make all people to have enough money to survive?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    I think you make a little more money than I do. Could you split the difference with me? I can send you my address if this works for you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,303
    One way to do is the Government should tax the rich 50%, and give the money to the poor.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    A quick Google shows that worldwide median household income is about $10,000. I could live on that.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    Get everyone to work the same amount, and make sure that everyone has the same opportunities (educational, healthcare, housing etc.) Next to impossible - and it solves, at best, about half the problem anyway.
    Or you want to start new companies. Or be philanthropic. Or fund your favorite (expensive) endeavor. Or support other people in your family. Or you are worried about expensive healthcare in the future. Lots of reasons. I don't know anyone who wants money just for the sake of having money.
    See above.
     
  9. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,303
    The wallstreet is only full of greedy activities,
    house price up due to manipulation by the rich,
    and poor people cannot afford to have own homes.

    But the poor are to do all the dirty labor like mining etc.,
    and the rich reap all the wealth created by the poor.

    This is an evil economy system.
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    House prices are up due to limited supply and great demand and poor people cannot afford to have their own homes because houses aren't free.

    Those who do a lot of work, dirty or otherwise, aren't poor. The rich don't reap all the wealth created by whom ever. Where do the middle class come into this equation? If they has money then it isn't all going to the rich or being created by the poor.

    The truly poor aren't creating any wealth.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,691
    The supply is significantly limited by investors and wealthy people buying them, and the resultant price increases allow jacking the rents to pay for them.
    You have to be kidding me. You believe that?
    Nonsense.

    The greatest drains on the US economy - the people who would most benefit the economy by vanishing tomorrow and taking everything they do with them - are those involved in the hedge funds and supporting financial speculation enterprises. Last calculation I saw estimated their net effect on wealth creation in the US at -1.5%. And that was without counting externalities, such as the diversion of intellectual effort from productive enterprise.

    As far as redistributing wealth, according to most modern economists flat distribution is inefficient and impoverishes, and greatly unequal distribution likewise - for best results, something like the US in 1950 seems the best setup.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    As is the rest of the world.
    House price up due to manipulation by people like you (and me.)
    Generally they can; the homes just aren't where they want them to be. If you can afford 300 a month you can afford a house of your very own in Cleveland, OH where a 4BR 2BA home goes for an AVERAGE of 64,993. Problem is that people don't want to live in Cleveland.
    It's not good or evil; it just is. It isn't perfect, it's just the least bad of all the systems we've tried.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,691
    The system we had between WWII and about 1980 worked better.
    Not really. House prices can't rise much faster than wages, on that driver.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,691
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    Agreed.

    That's not true. If you only make $7 or $8 an hour you could be working 80 or more hours a week and you would still be poor, and it depends on your expenses. If you have children or someone in your family has a medical illness or disability, you're going to need to earn a lot more money. So it's a little more complicated than you seem to think.

    And just what is "wealth" and how do you measure it? Is it a big income or is it what you have left over after all the bills are paid? Some people earn a lot, but they also spend a lot of money. So when all is said and done, they are probably worse off or more in debt than someone who earns much less.

    That depends on what you mean by wealth and how you define poor. In your view, what is wealth, and how do you measure it? I think the more appropriate measure is value. A service worker may not earn a lot of money, but they certainly add value. Maids, janitors, food workers, grounds keepers, generally don't earn much money, but they certainly create value. Imagine what life would be like without them.

    For most of my adult life I have had maids to clean my home and groundsmen care for my lawn, a nanny to care for my children, an aid to care for my aunt, and I gotta tell you, they add value to my life. I hate cleaning house. I always have. Thank God for maids! These service workers might not get paid well, but they do create value and in the end that's what is important.

    Even if you don't employ service workers directly everyone benefits from their labor. Imagine what your workplace would look like without service workers. These are important people who make valuable contributions to our society.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    It's not more complicated that I "seem to think". You don't know what I think because I can't tell you everything I think in a post on a forum. You seem to think in black and white.

    Of course people who work add value. In this particular case I was defining poor as someone without any money. I would define someone as stupid if they work at McDonald's and have a family to support.

    In what world can you have a family, work at McDonalds and buy a house. There isn't a system like that.

    I appreciate that many, many people are not making enough money. The post I was responding to tended to reduce everything to poor and rich. I implied that was stupid and it is.

    There are greedy on Wall Street but stocks also serve a function in our economic system and some seem to not understand that as well or to understand have wealth is created. It is just about "rich" and "poor". I do understand the many abuses as well.

    That wasn't the topic. It was a stupid topic actually and I'm sorry I got involved as is often the case here.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    So according to your definition someone who has even a single penny isn't poor. That's a pretty tough definition of poor. I think there are millions of folks earning poverty level wages would disagree with you.

    There's a difference between IQ and emotional intelligence, and not everyone grows up in an ideal family. Some people are the product of very dysfunctional families. There's more than IQ involved here.

    If you are a manager or franchise owner, you can work at McDonalds and buy a house.

    The post you responded to was naive. I'd call it more ignorant rather than stupid, and based on common misapprehensions.

    I agree, people don't understand how the economy works. They don't understand why Wall Street is important or why banks are important, and that's a failure of our schools to adequately teach our children. But I don't like the term 'wealth creation'. It's too vague and it tends to imply some people are better than others, i.e. the wealthy are better than the poor.

    I think it's a good topic. It's an opportunity for people to learn; too many people are far too ignorant of macroeconomics.
     
    Ophiolite likes this.
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    Wall street is full of greed, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. That greed motivates investors to risk their capital. That greed is the engine which finance the economy. That said, that greed needs to be constrained with an appropriate level of regulation. That's why we have a Security Exchange Administration, and other regulatory bodies to help keep the greed in check.

    Yeah, we need more regulation enforcement, but more than that we need better government, a more responsible government, and that's another line of discussion.

    We have a pretty good economy. What we need is a better way to distribute income. Rising income inequality in America is becoming more and more problematic. I think the way to solve that is with an earned income tax credit which is provided to lower income individuals. But that's not likely to happen, because the wealthy have a disproportionate influence on our government. This gets back to government being a problem. The rise of right wing extremism has been and continues to be problematic. That's the problem. It's not an economic problem per se.
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,462
    Ask Karl Marx.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,623
    Agreed there. However, wages on average are rising pretty rapidly - up 60% in real dollars since 1980. (i.e. adjusted for inflation.) That is driving housing prices.
     
  21. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,641
    So... someone who, due to circumstances outside their control, has no secondary education. They are out in the world, struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, working a pair of minimum wage jobs (such as McDonalds), as they aren't qualified for anything better.

    They cannot go to school because they cannot afford to do so, both financially, and because they are already working 70+ hours a week, when do they have time?

    They are "stupid" for that?

    Perhaps, just perhaps, the government needs to step in on cases like that and give them the opportunity to go to school...?

    Or, maybe, minimum wage should be set at a level where someone can work 35-40 hours a week and be able to afford basic necessities...
     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    I agree that they should be given an opportunity to go to school. I don't think they are stupid. I think the decision to stay at McDonalds and start a family and expect to buy a house is a stupid decision.

    Almost no one does that however. I don't think minimum wage does what some people think it does. You can't artificially manipulate the market like that. I don't like apples falling on my head when sitting under an apple tree but I can't just pass a law to stop gravity.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    And the point I was trying to make to you is that it may not have been a choice. The decision to stay may be driven more by circumstance than by choice, and people make mistakes. Some of us aren't born with the advantages of others.

    I agree with you. I don't think minimum wage does what some people think it will do. I think an earned income tax credit is a better way to go. Low end service workers will are competing with automation and it's only going to get worse as automation becomes better and more pervasive.
     

Share This Page