The top 20% should hold X% of the nation's wealth

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

Let individuals distribute their own wealth how they see fit.

Where's the poll question on what percent of individual created wealth the government should hold and control?

Why is it that if one man controls his self created wealth to do with as he pleases, we call this bad and greedy?

Yet suddenly if we call that one man the President of the United States, then suddenly all is good and benevolent.

Interesting how all the intentions and motivations change the second you give the same amount of money to the same type of man, but with a different title.

However much it holds in a free world. I don't know what percentage that is. No one does.

I want equal opportunity. I don't care about outcomes.

A couple of points:

The total amount of wealth in the world is not a fixed size that is merely divided up and distributed among a fixed group of people. It can and does grow. It grows, faster and larger in proportion to the amount of freedom that exists and the respect for property rights. It stagnates or even shrinks in proportion to the amount of forcible government intervention that exists and weaker respect for and protection of property rights.

Second, just because one group (let's say the "rich") are getting rich faster, does not mean that the poor are getting poorer. The assumption that this must be is a clear indication of zero-sum wealth thinking.

Third, I personally wouldn't mind having a smaller percentage of a bigger pie rather than a bigger percentage of a smaller pie.

For example: Let's say that the entire population consists of BR, me and jazzguru. Let's also say that the entire body of wealth consists of 100 units of something (coconuts, chickens, gold coins, green pieces of paper with portaits of dead presidents...whatever). Let's say that the wealth is perfectly equally distributed (33 each). The only thing that would want me to prefer that arrangement to the following would be envy: The entire body of wealth consists of 500 units of something (coconuts, chickens, gold coins, green pieces of paper with portaits of dead presidents...whatever). This time the wealth is very unequally distributed (400 for BR, 50 each for me and jazzguru). I'm still wealthier (52% wealthier in fact) than in the previous scenario.

In the end we have two basic choices: We can all be unequally wealthy or we can all be equally poor. This is the choice between the free-market and any form of socialism or fascism or collectivism in which wealth is forcibly controlled, managed and redistributed through centralized government power. These are the two options. There really is no "third way." That's a delusion and a fantasy concocted by people who don't know what they're talking about (or are deliberately trying to mislead someone.)

70% of the wealth held by the top 20% is my guess. It is a more complex problem than just "equal opportunity" of course, how progressive are the tax rates, etc.

The prices of equal opportunity (I am mainly thinking of high estate taxes here) are very high on a society, since it re-directs a lot of productive capital into otherwise useless life insurance products, and triggers business bankruptcies in cases where the IRS rules that the business is worth more than you thought it was when you bought the life insurance.

You are missing the point, not me.

If everyone has equal opportunity, does that mean everyone will pursue that opportunity in the same way? Does it mean everyone will work equally as hard?

Equal opportunity does NOT mean equal results.

This is a slightly different question than the opening poster asked:


My answer to that question is: However it gets distributed based on people's freedom, varying skills and productivity, willingness to trade, etc.

If the question means to as "how should we re-distribute the wealth?" My answer is: We shouldn't.

As to what I think the end result would be? I couldn't even begin to imagine specific percentages. I suspect that's a fool's game anyway. I would actually expect wealth to come to a natural and more even distribution than it currently has because there would be fewer wealthy people able to protect their wealth through government largess, rent-seeking and protectionism. The poor would be come richer because the government wouldn't be artificially raising prices on goods they purchase, restricting competition in markets they participate in as consumers, and stealing more of the wealth they accumulate through inflation and income taxes.

Are you proposing that wealth be controlled? if you are, there are several socialist nations you may wish to migrate to that you'd likely enjoy. If you are not, then understand that accumulation of wealth constitutes the essential element of freedom in a democracy. The answer to your question then, "how much wealth do you think the top 20% should hold?" is really none of your business.

Ah, capitalist fundamentalists.

People can organise themselves any way they please. Your way, the "The Poor Can Go Fuck Themselves" way, as apparently endorsed by Jesus Christ (American Edition), is not morally superior in itself to any other method.

People can, indeed, decide to share. Your cultural norms are not an expression of the basic default state of the human condition. OK? The idea that the pursuit of wealth is the almighty fucking holy grail is your bag, but it is not derived from any moral absolute.

In fact it seems pretty revolting to me, although I admit that I was raised by communists in an apple orchard.

Inequality and violence and crime go hand-in-hand. Google the indices. They go in lockstep. As your nation becomes less and less equal, you will have more. You can privatise the police, you can abolish taxes, you can refuse a penny for roads you don't drive on, but your country will become more and more violent.

You can't serve Christ and Mammon. You wouldn't know what charity was it if it bit you on the face.

Oh, but this is demonstrably nonsense. In the sense that I can demonstrate it's nonsense by pointing you to northern European countries with a better standard of living than anywhere else in the world. Those evil Scandinavian countries which are amongst the most equal in the world have a better standard of living than anywhere else. They pay more than 40% of their income as tax. They have far fewer billionaires per capita, but poverty does not exist.

Can you imagine living in a place where poverty does not exist?

There is a third way, and if you weren't such an economic fundamentalist you might be able to imagine its existence. Actually, you don't need to imagine it. Get on a plane and go and see it. But dress well, because they have more disposable income than Americans do, and they spend a lot of it on clothes.

There's much to be said about what you're claiming but I don't have the time right now to go into all of it. But I can address one particular claim:


This is only one source that suggests you're wrong. According to this source (data from 2005) the average gross incomes break down like this:

US: $42,028
Norway: $37,094
Netherlands: $34,746
(can't find the rolled up numbers for Sweden and Finland yet)

And the average disposable incomes are:

US: $31,410
Norway: $25,224
Netherlands: $25,466
(can't find the rolled up numbers for Sweden and Finland yet)

Additionally, the cost of living is higher in these northern European countries. With the US cost of living as the base (i.e., 1.0) cost of living in these countries is:

Norway: 1.487 (48.7% higher)
Netherlands: 1.224 (22.4% higher)
Sweden: 1.293 (29.3% higher)
Finland: 1.184 (18.4% higher)

So out of smaller disposable incomes, they are paying more to live. I'd call that a lower standard of living (in as objective a way as that phrase can be determined.)

The poor will be with us forever; you cannot transfer wealth to end poverty! More important, it is those with money that generate jobs - why can't you liberals grasp that concept? Penalizing the wealthy in some forlorn effort to end poverty only perpetuates the recession we are in.

There is no poverty in Denmark.

It does not exist.

And, I should add, the standard of living is higher than in America, and when a gun is discharged in public it is national news.

Why do you conservatives not have the imagination to conceive that this might be possible?

Easy to answer - 80%

Classic 80-20 rule, also known as the Pareto principle. What are they teaching kids these days?

The answer is of course "As much as you can".

It was tongue in cheek, but it always amazes me that in life it seems to hold true for so many things

I guess everyone lacks the imaginatino to believe complete lies.


The quality of the question determins that as well.

Here's a nice bit that hits on the problem.
Turns out when you are that sole voice screaming out that everyone who doesn't agree with you is just a whining, retarded, asshole, it doesn't go over well for votes, or go well in terms of persuasiveness.

Those expressing frustration at how everyone else is an idiot because they don't "get it" with regard to their prescribed solutions and views should probably look in the mirror.

Er... is that the best you can do? You can find 200,000 people who earn less than half of the national average in a country where the social welfare net is so sound that no one ever goes hungry and there is no homelessness at all?

In poverty terms, Denmark, with its ridiculously high taxes, makes your nation look like a third world country.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/...zlement_a.html

Most equitable nation in Europe.

It's working. Suck it up.

You claimed it didn't exist. It does. That means you lied.

Also there are homeless as well. You've lied a second time. Please stop making shit up.

Also I can dig more if you want but really why sweat it. You claimed it was utopia and it isn't.

Also make sure you note the small numbers on both sides. Denmark only has 5.2 million people total. It isn't even a good size county in California let alone some massive country. They are simply the Saudia Arabia of the North. They pump wealth out of the ground and well it. That isn't a sustainable model for 6 billion people and it won't even be a sustainable model for them going forward.

As usual, there's a lot more to the story.

Just to add.

Every single one of those people in 'poverty' can send their kids to a kindergarten which is usually better than any preschool in the world and can get healthcare to the exact same standard as anyone.

Is it perfect? No.

Is it working? Well, considering the alternatives, hell yes.

No one likes paying taxes. Everyone grumbles.

But the metro buses in Copenhagen have free wi-fi and there's is no such thing as a slum in the entire nation. There's virtually no street crime and the nation consistently tops standard of living and wellbeing indices, year on year. People like it. Fewer billionaires, outrageous taxes, functional society. Got problems, not perfect, all right. But economically and societally, it's a model that's worth emulating. America's closer to Brazil and South Africa in its inequality, and you know what, I'd rather live in Copenhagen than in Washington or Detroit.

That's a wonderful comparison. Delightful really. I'd love to point out the irony of it, but well...

Shut up, trumptman.

[quote]In Denmark, the level of in-work poverty is limited and almost non-existent in standard employment. Therefore, in-work poverty is not a priority, although poverty and income inequality are a subject of debate. Nevertheless, poverty risks may occur among young workers, people at the margin of the labour market, in some forms of atypical employment and among some migrant workers.[]/quote]

The system is far surperior to your system. It simply is. You can defend your third world inequality, but I guess it's easy to do when you live on a street with a bunch of bourgeous WASPs who go cycling every weekend rather than seeing the consequences of systemised poverty every time you leave your door.

Goodnight.

No. Why don't you just snipe from the sidelines with foolish one-liners that add fuck all to the exchange, like you normally do.

[QUOTE=Mumbo Jumbo;1724776]Shut up, trumptman.


It's hilarious that you beg to live in a country that is 85% white and that claims green while burning coal and pumping oil out of the ground to keep those white people rich.

What the hell does some statement about the working poor, full of disclaimers about lack of studies, lack of data, etc. have to do with whether there are homeless or poor people in Denmark?

What else should we expect from someone caught lying so badly?!? You can't support what you say because the concept is foreign to you. No one buys your lies.

What a deeply unpleasant thing to write, Trumptman, and what a deeply unpleasant person you are. I've reported your post to the moderators. It is disgusting to me, and probably the most offensive ad hominem I've received in all my time here.

You oblige me to say that I was raised in a political house. Both of my parents were extremely committed to political causes they couldn't escape. As a consequence, I make certain assumptions when I argue.

The first is that colonialism was very damaging to many nations, and that many nations are still struggling to escape this poisonous legacy today. I don't believe this needs spelling out. Apparently you do. You seem to think that when I point to the troubled nature of states in Africa, I'm saying "It's because they're black."

This is your own connection, and your own racism, and I wish you'd keep it to yourself, because it's disgusting.

Likewise, when I discuss the economic system of a place like Denmark, I'm discussing its economic system. When you point out that Denmark is 85% white, and I like it because it's white, this disgusting connection is your own, and I wish you'd keep it to yourself, because it betrays your own racism, and it's deeply, deeply offensive.

If Washington and Detroit are "brown", I truly don't care. I guess I knew that, but I'm not an expert on the racial make-up of American cities. I don't live in America. That's completely irrelevant to my point. I was referring to the level of poverty and the murder rates in those cities. Again, the racial connection is yours, and it is offensive, and it bespeaks your racism.

I don't "beg" to live in Copenhagen. I just got off the plane and got on the metro to my fiancé's house. It was very easy. One of the reasons I left the city and returned to London was because I missed the multicultural nature of that city, and I found the racism in Denmark depressing.

Take your assumptions, and your preparedness to write anything it takes in order to "win"and stick them up your fucking anus.

Should have added a to clarify!

To me the question is not about how much the top 20% should have but making sure that the "bottom 20%" have enough to survive on. There will always be the super rich who skew the results but look at the average Joe to get a true feel.

And to clarify don't jump on "survive" as hand to mouth existence!

How is that ironic?

http://www.answers.com/topic/irony

I voted honestly for 60%. I think that's a very VERY fair number, and continues to encourage capitalism and discourage complacency, which I think is important. However, it is not as disgustingly disproportionate as the actual case is today (my guess 95%).

MJ, we need to clarify something from your posts in this thread. When Mumbo Jumbo says "...they have more disposable income than Americans do..." he's not talking about mean income. Your statistics are irrelevant when income distribution is disproportionate. It is a FACT that the "average Joe" in Denmark has more disposable income than the "average Joe" in the US. You can dispute this all you want, but all any attempt at doing so would do is display your ignorance.

I agree wholeheartedly. Trumptman has clearly the most vocally racist leanings on this board, and it's clear he has no clue how anyone could come to that conclusion. But reading his posts, ALMOST EVERYTHING is about race to him.

There was no reason whatsoever to link Denmark to race. There are hidden implications in his statement: Denmark has less poor people than the US because it has fewer minorities? Mumbo Jumbo likes Denmark because Mumbo Jumbo is a racist? I don't know. What a twisted mind, in any case.

My suggestion is that Nick should just stop mentioning race completely, and maybe then he'll be able to hide his racism better. With practice he could even forget that race is an issue to the non-racist when race really doesn't play a part in something.

And you don't care about the fact that under the system where it requires wealth to have power there can be no equal opportunity without systemic correction. Under the free-market capitalist system, the wealthy perpetuate their own wealth, and use their inherent power to do so. This is not equality of opportunity.